NOV 19 — Pusat KOMAS is appalled by the racist attacks made by the opposition MPs against the Minister of National Unity and Social Well-Being P.Waytha Moorthy who was wrapping up the 2019 Budget debate earlier today.

Malaysia is a nation which is built on the notion of inclusiveness. The call to sign and ratify the ICERD is in line with the notion and the Pakatan Harapan manifesto which states that “all citizens of any country aspire for an inclusive, harmonious, progressive, prosperous, just and equitable life, free from any forms of discrimination. The diversity of races and religions should be seen as a source of power, not as an obstacle”. A new Malaysia is expected to stop all forms of usage of the racial and religious card which pits one race with the other for the sake of short-term political expediency and gains.

Pusat KOMAS is shocked by the old ugly politics of the new opposition in the Parliament today by labelling the Minister as racist for calling for the ratification of ICERD. We would like to stress that for the past few weeks, the opposition parties have been in cahoots in inciting racism and provoking riot within the country by spreading false and malicious information on the implications on the ratification of ICERD in Malaysia. This is reflected in the statements made by the leaders of these political parties and the nationwide protest against the ratification of ICERD.

We would like to reiterate that the signing and the ratification of ICERD would not harm the welfare of the bumiputeras in Malaysia and in fact, strengthen the relevant provisions in the Federal Constitution which is aimed to promote the welfare of the bumiputeras in Malaysia. For far too long, Article 153 was misused by political elites to safeguard their own particular interests, disregarding the needs of the people who really need it. Pusat KOMAS is in the view that the opposition parties should STOP at all cause in its efforts to mislead the public and to act as champions of their own race and religion.

In the breath of the new Malaysia, all forms of racial provocation and instigation should cease to exist. The new opposition needs to grow mature politically and find ways to work with the new government and ministers for a better Malaysia locally and internationally.

Pusat KOMAS also calls upon the new government to desist falling into the racist traps by the opposition parties. The government should show its political will by denouncing such acts and march together to promote inclusiveness in the country. It is now time for us to show the world that we are not a racist country and not allow anyone to corner us there again.

* *This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOV 18 — Those who propagate the ratification of ICERD also contend the idea that the Convention does not in any way contradict the Malaysian constitution.

Reference was made mostly to Article 2(2) of the Convention which states that when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, states are permitted to take special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them ”

Further reference was also frequently made to Article 1 (4) of ICERD which says that “Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination ” .

These lead to the understanding that ICERD allows certain forms of discrimination, and thus Article 153 of our constitution is actually consistent with ICERD. Consequently, some have also conveniently conclude that what we have in our constitution is safely unaffected by ICERD’s provision and no constitutional amendment whatsoever will be necessary even if we were to become a member to the convention. Is this really true?

Does our Article 153 of the Federal Constitution fall explicitly within the definition of the ‘allowed’ discrimination under ICERD as mentioned above? Is it true that all so-called ‘privileges’ related to the special position of Malays and Bumiputras in Malaysia are imperturbable by the ratification, hence will remain intact and unchanged? Most importantly, is it as easy as ratify but nothing will change? This article aims to answer exactly these questions, and hopes to help clarify any misunderstandings that some may have in interpreting ICERD provisions.

It must firstly be emphasized here that simply declaring our Constitution to be falling under the ‘permitted’ discrimination, and hence we do not have to change anything in our domestic laws, will NOT be consistent with the requirements of the Convention. The truth is, this supposed exception to the general rule is not provided without any pre-required conditions and restrictive provisos. For Article 2(2), the convention clearly mentions that such ‘permitted discrimination’ is only allowed for the purpose of guaranteeing full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms to the intended group that enjoys the special measures. Whereas reading Article 1(4) as a whole illuminate two constrictive provisos namely:

That such special measures are allowed only if they do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups. Gen. Recommendation 32 (Para 26) of Article 1, paragraph 4, provides that the measures “should not lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups”; and

That they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.

Hence, based on the above, there are three main question that we should be asking ourselves, which we must sincerely have answers to:

Are our alleged ‘special measures’ (the one that we have in our constitutions and local laws) solely designed for the purpose of ensuring that the target group i.e. the Malays and the Bumiputras are able to enjoy full rights and freedom which are equal to others? Or are these measures intended to do more than that? Does our concept of special position of the Malays and Bumiputras explicitly match ICERD’s definition of special measures and ‘allowed’ discrimination.

Do our so-called special measures lead to the maintenance of separate rights for the Malays and the Bumiputras? In simple words, do they (as a group) have certain rights and privileges allocated only for them that others don’t?

Is the special position that we accord to the Malays and Bumiputras truly temporary until the aims have been achieved? Do we intend for it to stop at any point in time? Or is it here to stay for longer if not forever due to historical reasons? How do we decide whether the aims have been achieved and who gets to decide that? Is the Malay and Bumiputra special position something that is uniquely different about our pluralistic Malaysian society that ICERD does not and/or unable to contemplate within its scope?

Regardless of what our answers are, the crucial thing to remember here is that we ourselves do not get to decide whether our situations entitle us to implement the said ‘special measures’ under Art 2(2) and 1(4). It’s not our government that has the say in terms of whether what we have in our laws and constitution should be allowed under the convention. Once ratified, we are obliged to submit to ICERD’s monitoring body, known as the ICERD Committee. And it must be highlighted that the exceptional allowance is not without any strict monitoring and meticulous control. General Recommendation 32 (Para 37) issued by the ICERD committee implicitly states that any state parties intending to implement special measures under the aforesaid Article 2(2) and 1(4) of the Convention should clearly describe their special measures, and they must be in the purview of any articles of the Convention to which the measures are related. States are required to submit reports on a periodical basis to the committee and their reports must include the following items:

The terminology applied to special measures as understood in the Convention

The justifications for special measures, supported by relevant statistical and other data on the general situation of beneficiaries,

A brief account of how the disparities to be remedied have arisen, and

The results to be expected from the application of the special measures

The intended beneficiaries of the measures

The range of consultations undertaken towards the adoption of the measures including consultations with intended beneficiaries and with civil society generally

The nature of the measures and how they promote the advancement,development and protection of groups and individuals concerned

The fields of action or sectors where special measures have been adopted

Where possible, the envisaged duration of the measures

The institutions in the State responsible for implementing the measures

The available mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation of the measures

Participation by targeted groups and individuals in the implementing institutions and in monitoring and evaluation processes

The results, provisional or otherwise, of the application of the measures

Plans for the adoption of new measures and the justifications thereof

Information on reasons why, in the light of situations that appear to justify the adoption of measures, such measures have not been taken.

The aforesaid signifies one very important reality of this so-called ‘allowed discrimination’. It is not going to be allowed forever, and while being allowed, we don’t get to make any decisions on how and how long it will be carried out. It’s the committee that will make the evaluation, and any conclusions ultimately reached will consequently become a recommendation that we must adhere to as a state party to the convention. According to Gen. Recommendation No.32 (para 27),Special Measures should be stopped when the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved. And once again, it must be remembered that it is not the state parties themselves that have the discretion to determine this. This limitation on the operation of special measures is essentially functional and goal-related: the measures should cease to be applied when the objectives for which they were employed i.e.the equality goals, have been sustainably achieved. The length of time permitted for the duration of the measures will vary in the light of their objectives, the means utilized to achieve them, and the results of their application. Special measures should, therefore, be carefully tailored to meet the particular needs of the groups or individuals concerned.

The conscientious nature of every each of the above mentioned criteria and the procedural requirements and monitoring steps by the ICERD committee crucially demonstrates how meticulous the control is upon all state parties. To say that nothing will change after ratifying ICERD is an oversimplification of the issue at hand. The unalterable reality about any ratification of any human rights treaty is that we are letting ourselves being evaluated by a third party who may or may not understand the reasons and historical origins of why things are they way they are. Presuming that we do ratify ICERD with the hope that our Article 153 falls within the definition of special measures as provided in the convention, we still have to satisfy the above mentioned 15 items before it can be deemed as special measure. There’s of course good and bad in this. But we need to be really careful in studying what they are. Honest discussions and sincere analysis of the realities are inevitable. Oversimplifying things, and side-stepping real risks is not the way to go about doing this.

*Shahrul Mizan Ismail is associate professor of Human Rights Law, Faculty of Law, UKM* *This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 17 — BBC political correspondent Chris Mason stood outside of the mother of parliaments on Monday morning and said he didn’t have the “foggiest idea” about where Brexit is going. Then he made what have been described as “exasperated noises” — and promptly became an online viral sensation.

But Mason’s exhalations were a disgrace for two reasons. There was much to explain about the UK government’s draft deal on leaving the European Union, and many future possibilities to explore. More importantly, Brexit, for all of the chaotic politics it has provoked, is a genuine political argument conducted within the bounds of a robust democracy. Indeed, it is a sign of a robust democracy. To make exasperated noises about it is to mock the purpose of the famed public-service BBC in national life.

To be sure, the political process is chaotic, and at times alarming. At this stage in the prolonged torture that is Brexit, a plan has been provisionally accepted by the European Union, provisionally agreed by a majority in a split cabinet and is likely to go to a parliament which, at present, seems disposed to vote it down. The nay-sayers include the Democratic Unionist Party, the largest party in Northern Ireland, which has provided a slim majority to give support to Theresa May’s Conservatives, but now seems too outraged by the implications of the deal for the province to continue.

To add strength to this view of the future, the cabinet has suffered a rash of resignations this week. One of those leaving is Dominic Raab, recently appointed as Brexit secretary charged with securing a departure deal. The government is being shredded bit by bit: the prime minister has retained the occupants of the three main offices of state — the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and the Home Secretary Sajid Javid. If one of these goes, May’s government is over. Even now, Brexiteers are striving to fire her. And the best analysts of the parliamentary arithmetic indicate her time in office will soon be over anyway.

Why? What is the plan to which so many object so strongly — and for such very different reasons? The overarching truth is two-fold. First, it is a highly temporary deal, with most of the technical details, especially on trade, still to be worked out in an extended negotiation period. And second, it constrains the UK, preventing it from making trade deals with non-EU states, as when it was a full member — but giving it no voice in the councils of the Union. The UK will stay in a customs union, which will allow the continuing of frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. But Northern Ireland will be subject to a tighter regulatory regime than the rest of the country — a fact which leading Unionists in the province believe will hasten the break-up of the UK itself, and prompt Scots nationalists, who are in power in the Scottish parliament, to demand a separate deal — arguing that Scotland voted heavily to remain, and bolstering their demand for independence.

The plan has attracted opposition from pro-Brexiteers, who believe it imprisons the UK in a cage which the EU has constructed for an indefinite period. Former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson used his Telegraph column, and his Churchillian rhetoric, earlier this week to draw a picture of a country “in captivity,” only now able to “savour the full horror of this capitulation.” His younger brother, Jo Johnson, who is opposed to Brexit, resigned from his post as transport minister for some of the same reasons, calling the deal “an utterly abject and shameful national humiliation,” and stressing that no deal could possibly be better than the country’s membership of the EU.

The one political force which could save the deal is the opposition Labour Party — though hopes are very thin indeed. Most party members are for Remain, but its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and his closest colleagues in the shadow cabinet are not: he told the German magazine Der Spiegel last week that “we can’t stop Brexit.” Though Labour’s present position is that it will vote down the plan, and call for a government resignation and a general election, there are groups within the party who may defy the leadership and support the prime minister — yet probably not enough to counter the Conservatives pledged to vote against her.

Democracy, when passions and principles are aroused, is a messy business. That is especially the case when, as now, a large boil filled with anti-EU sentiment has been lanced, and the barely-suppressed animosity to the loss of sovereignty to a multinational union which seeks to be a European state has been fully roused.

Like many of the British boomer generation, I had been a supporter of the EU — less for the UK, more as a capacious gathering of democratic states which could enfold the east and central European states once they sloughed off communism. In 10 years in the area as a correspondent, I thought, in the euphoric period after the end of the Soviet Union, that even Russia might come into membership.

No longer. Russia is using all of its considerable diplomatic skill to woo European states away from the EU, finding allies in Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary and President Milos Zeman in the Czech Republic — and more recently, Italy’s most powerful and popular politician, deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, together with the extraordinary prize of U.S. President Donald Trump — a populist International. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Merkel continue to pursue — probably futilely — a more closely integrated EU, with the ambition of creating a European army.

Yet Britain is making a large mistake in leaving. It might have taken the lead in pushing within the EU for a third way — between exit and integration. The EU cannot overcome national attachments and the desire of Europeans to have a government they can hold to account — a necessary part of democracy the EU cannot offer. However, much of what it does in facilitating trade among members, in drawing together the leading politicians on joint projects and problems — on the environment, on security, on education — is admirable and needed. An explicitly two-speed Europe, where the integrators pursue the dream and the pragmatists pursue both national and common interests would have the result of retaining much of the value the Union has added to European life, and depriving the national populists of a large part of the problem. But it is now, it seems, too late. — Reuters

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 17 — Dear Pakatan Harapan government and IGP Tan Sri Mohamad Fuzi Harun, good day. I do hope you all remember me. Indira Gandhi, that relentless, poor ,single mother who has been pining for her daughter.

It has been many, many years now, and I am yet to see my youngest daughter Prasana Diksa, let alone hear any updates about efforts to locate her and my fugitive ex-husband.

Where are they? Is Prasana alive? Is she well? As her mother, I do not know these things which I rightfully should. Why? Because the authorities are yet to tell me anything about her.

What happened to the Federal Court’s order? Is it not sacred anymore? No one needs to heed it? Isn’t rule of law observed today? When will it apply to my case? Will I see justice?

I voted for Pakatan Harapan. The party which supported my fight when the coalition was still the Opposition. Today, much to my happiness, it has finally took over Putrajaya. I do hope that the same volition which was present when the party was fighting with me to claim Prasana back, is very much present until now.

I would also like to plead and beg to the religious groups to help me in this matter. Especially the right-wing ones. What would you do if Prasana was your child? Take off your religious lenses for just once, and help me. My daughter was unfairly snatched away from me. What would you do if you were in my shoes?

I love my daughter very much. I do not know how long I will be alive. But as long as I breathe, I will say Prasana’s name every day, I will keep asking about her until she is reunited with me and her two other siblings. My New Malaysia is the day my daughter is returned back to me.

So to the IGP and the Pakatan Harapan government. How long more?

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 16 — This article is not going to be the answer to the question of whether Malaysia should ratify the heatedly debated International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, also known as ICERD.

But this is definitely a response towards those who suggest a “ratify now, think about the consequences later” approach. It is also a definitive reminder to those who contend the idea of joining ICERD, but putting in reservations so as to avoid Malaysia from having to comply with certain “inconvenient” or “undesirable” provisions in the treaty.

When a state ratifies any international human rights treaties, it assumes a legal obligation to implement the rights recognised in that treaty. In international human rights law, state responsibility is strict in that states are responsible for violations of their treaty obligations even where they were not intentional.

The ratifying state must conform to all the obligations laid down in the human rights treaty, and cannot generally avoid them without a strong and valid justification. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties 1969 states that, “Every treaty in force is binding upon the (state) parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”

This sacrosanct doctrine otherwise known as pacta sunt servanda underpins the entire system of treaty-based relations between sovereign states. In simple words, it refers to the rule that a state party to any treaty MUST keep its promise, and cannot invoke provisions of its domestic law as a justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.

The cardinal value of pacta sunt servanda as a principle of international law has been universally recognised by all states throughout centuries. Originally based on customary practice among states, it was later even incorporated into the previous Covenant of the League of Nations and the present Charter of the United Nations, although neither document referred to the principle by name.

According to Professor JF O’Connor, the principle of good faith in international law is a fundamental principle from which other legal rules related to honesty, fairness and reasonableness are derived. Good faith implementation is essential in the world of human rights. Without this principle, no serious enactment of human rights treaties is ever possible.

The reality about international human rights law is that there is no central police or compulsory judicial authority that can control all the sovereign states in the world. Given the lack of effective international enforcement mechanisms in the human rights world, the pacta sunt servanda obligation in substantive reality is vital.

To enter into a treaty, with no serious intention to perform the obligations attached is dishonourable. To enter into it with the intention to enter any reservations that directly contradicts the object and purpose of the treaty is abominable.

In the past, there have been numerous instances when human rights instruments remain a dead letter, even when solemnly ratified in the eyes of the international community. India, Sri Lanka and Cambodia have all ratified many international instruments, but have so far still failed to protect human rights in practice, sacrificing them to internal security needs or allowing the system of law and justice to be corrupted by impunity.

This is the reason why when a state chooses to become a member to any humanrights treaty, it must do so with good faith. By ratifying a treaty, a state is actually, voluntarily undertakes to put in place, domestic measures and legislation compatible with its treaty obligations.

In the context of ICERD, the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR) has clarified that the Convention requires all of its member states to have legislation that clearly and specifically prohibits racial discrimination and related acts.

It also demands further concrete action in the judiciary and administration, as well as in the fields of culture, education and information. A state party is deemed NOT to be fulfilling its obligations under the Convention merely by condemning racial discrimination.

An example of this is in relation to Argentina where the ICERD committee in its Concluding Observations in 2010, pointed out that racial discrimination has not yet been defined as an offence in Argentinian domestic law in accordance with the Convention. Hence, the Committee recommended for Argentina to make every possible effort to have racial discrimination defined as an offence under its law.

In its Concluding Observations on Indonesia in 2007 [CERD/C/IDN/CO/3] (Para 356), the Committee instructed the State party to adopt a comprehensive law that takes into consideration ALL elements of the definition of racial discrimination provided in article 1 of the Convention, and that guarantees the enjoyment of all rights enumerated in article 5 of the Convention.

The Committee also called for a more detailed information on measures adopted to ensure all domestic laws complies with the Convention.

The after effect of ratifying also include many other significant changes such as numerous modifications to government policies, excessive training of government officials, not to mention the need to establish effective systems of data collection for the purpose of complying with the periodical reporting obligations to the treaty committee.

In General Recommendation No. 5 (Preamble: 3rd para), the ICERD committee stressed on the binding nature of all the obligations listed under article 7 of the Convention, and that all States parties are required to include information on their implementation of the provisions of that article in the reports they submit in accordance with article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

An example could be found in the committee’s Concluding Observation on Finland [CERD/C/FIN/CO/20-22], where it highlighted and disapproved of Finland’s legislation that deflected the collection of statistical data based on race or ethnicity, and the absence in Finland’s report of recent reliable and comprehensive statistical data on the composition of its population disaggregated by ethnicity, indigenous peoples, other minority groups and immigrants living in the territory of the State party.

Signature and ratification of conventions are not the same thing as fidelity to them. The absence of any real prospect of enforcement makes it feasible for some governments to ratify agreements they cannot keep. These by the end of the day run counter to the actual purpose of the human rights treaty monitoring system.

Ratifying a treaty without an earnest intention to abide by it simply violates the principle of good faith. As rightly pointed out by Amnesty International, ratification is a solemn indication of a government's commitment to safeguard and uphold human rights.

It gives assurance that it will be subjected to a continuing international obligation to guarantee specific and fundamental human rights, no matter who is in power.

Ratification of international human rights instruments marks the beginning of a process, not the end. It will be a long, tedious and costly process.

With our new government constantly raising the issue of financial constraints left by the previous administration, can we afford to do this now? Entering for the sake of entering will just not do.

This statement is reckless. The Shariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997, the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 and their equivalent in all other state syariah enactments do not list “pluralism” or “liberalism” as a crime per se.

Zainul’s reliance on Sections 5, 7, 13 and 14 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 as a basis of his statement is misleading. None of the provisions cited by him make any express mention of the words “pluralism” and “liberalism.”

To the contrary, the Rukun Negara which was gazetted on August 31, 1970 as the National Policy recognises that Malaysia is a plural society and must ensure “a liberal approach to our rich and diverse cultural traditions.”

The official website of the Department of National Unity and Integration sets out the explanation to the Rukun Negara, on the topic of pluralism and liberalism which can be summarised as follows:

Just Society

A just society that is free from oppression caused by a person to another.

Liberal Society

A liberal society in which the society are free to choose religion, customs and culture of their own.

Progressive Community

A progressive society which stays abreast with the progress of science and technology by each group handling their own affairs.

Freedom of speech, expression and belief are fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 10 and 11 of the Federal Constitution. There have been prosecutions by the religious authorities like the case of the late Malay intellectual Kassim Ahmad which was eventually quashed by the superior Courts.

The prosecution against SIS Forum (Malaysia) is not for “pluralism” or “liberalism” but for an alleged breach of a fatwa. That case is still pending before the High Court after the Federal Court directed a retrial.

The fatwa in question is being challenged for being in contravention of, among others, Article 10 and 11 of the Federal Constitution which provide for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It is not appropriate to cite that case as being a case on “pluralism” or “liberalism.”

Shariah and Malay intellectuals should refrain from making sensational statements that do not represent the correct law that may unnecessarily alarm society and paint a negative image of Islam.

* Rosli Dahlan is a lawyer

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 14 — The Centre for Human Rights Research and Advocacy (Centhra) warmly welcomes and strongly supports the statement of the Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed in condemning the actions of Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi in downplaying the massacre of the Rohingya people as defending the indefensible.

Indeed, Aung San Suu Kyi’s transformation from democracy icon to international pariah began with the same unjustifiable behaviour and is now all but complete following her recent yet utterly deplorable attempt at justifying the jailing of two international journalists by her regimelast month.

The regime she leads is now far from a respectable member of the international community of civilised nations as a result.

Consequently, we are elated to hear that the international human rights organisation Amnesty International has chosen to withdraw its conferment of its highest honour, the Ambassador of Conscience Award upon Aung San Suu Kyi.

Undoubtedly, this is yet another in a long line of awards that this undeserving peace laureate has lost and represents another blow to her once indomitable prestige which now lies in tatters.

Other losses suffered due to her insufferable actions include the revocation of a Canadian honorary citizenship as well as the cancellations of Freedoms of Oxford, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle, as well as the removal of a plague in the Scottish city of Aberdeen erected in her honour, all due in no small part to her callous indifference to the suffering of the Rohingya at the hands of a government that she, as state chancellor, is widely considered to be the de facto leader of, if not de jure.

Centhra also repeats its past demand to the Nobel Prize Committee, as well as others who have invested the Myanmar leader with any sort of honorary bestowments to remove and revoke the same with all practicable expedience given her unmasking as a human rights violator and a pariah complicit in the mass murder of the Rohingya people.

The international community must brook no more excuses and act now. Accordingly, we urge each and every leader of Asean gathering in Singapore for their 33rd summit this week to immediately and jointly apply the needful political and social pressure backed by their formidable economic clout and bring the same to bear upon Myanmar to force its regime to hold those who have committed grave crimes against the Rohingya accountable as well as resolve the causes of displacement and ongoing genocide of Rohingya Muslims which has also included the Kachin Christians, another minority group of Myanmar.

Centhra recalls the commitment of all nations, those of Asean, to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a global political commitment made at the 2005 World Summit.

The principle of the R2P is based upon the underlying premise that all nations possess a fundamental obligation to protect all populations from mass atrocities and entails the exercise of a framework for employing measures such as mediation, early warning mechanisms, and economic sanctions to prevent human rights violations and to protect civilians from their occurrence.

Centhra urges that members of Asean immediately activate this framework and apply the same as against Myanmar in order to cajole their regime into restoring the basic rights and dignity due and owing to the Rohingya community.

Such actions could, and surely must also include, appropriate political, economic and military sanctions against Myanmar including use of economic and military force against the regime pursuant to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter should the regime continue to disregard the will of the international community as regards the safety and well-being of the Rohingya.

Already Myanmar has made known its utter contempt for international law and due process by ignoring the findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (IIFFMM) through its report, which, as all leaders of Asean no doubt know had they read the same, documented inhumane treatments against the Rohingya, among other indiscriminate attacks, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary deprivation of liberty,

enforced disappearance, destruction of property and looting, torture, rape, and other forms of gender-based violence, leading to the inescapable and incontrovertible conclusion that the persecution and actions taken against the Rohingya are genocide, crime against humanity, and war crimes as defined by the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court.

Consequently, it must thus be asked, and Centhra thus accordingly asks when and at what juncture will the leaders of Asean heed the call to uphold basic human rights and dignity for all peoples, and thus finally decide that enough is enough, and finally take decisive action against the Burmese regime?

Many Rohingya and Kachin lives have already been lost that may well have been saved had the Asean community of nations, acting in concert with the wider international community, earlier moved to impose due punitive measures against Myanmar.

Centhra again beseeches the leaders of Asean to heed the call to action, and accordingly declare the sufferings of the Rohingya to be no less a genocide.

Also given the involvement of the United States as a partner of Asean in attendance at this 33rd Asean Summit via its representation by the US Vice-President Mike Pence, Centhra also calls upon the US to remain true to its stated commitment to defend liberty and human dignity worldwide, and reprise its role as enforcer of the two ideals by similarly declaring the massacre of Rohingya at the hands of Suu Kyi’s barbaric regime as a crime against humanity.

Concrete action in the form of sanctions and the creation of a safe zone within Rakine State in Myanmar policed by the international community via the UN acting in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter with appropriate no-fly zones above the same could thus follow.

Only then can any notion of refoulement of the displaced Rohingya back into their lands in Myanmar, as agreed between the government of Bangladesh and the Myanmar regime via the so-called “Arrangement on Return of Displaced Persons from Rakhine State” take place, and any such arrangement must guarantee the safety and dignity of those Rohingya who return as well as the restoration of their rightful status as citizens of Myanmar unjustly stripped of them back in 1982 via the enforcement of measures heretofore suggested, and not before.

NOVEMBER 14 — Trump's approach towards Russia has been one of the most controversial parts of his office so far. It seems that the US president wants to develop a friendship with this old rival. But it isn’t going to be so easy, and that’s because Beijing is standing between them.

Without any doubt, one of the most controversial issues is the fascination Trump seems to have with Russia and its charismatic leader Vladimir Putin.

With regard to the relation between China and Russia, it has started to improve since the end of the 1980s with some treaties and agreements being signed. But it all changed when Xi Jinping came to power in 2012. Since then, relations have advanced far more quickly.

Beijing seems to be certain about one thing and that is an alliance between China and Russia would be very powerful from any perspective. Today, both countries are cooperating like they never have before.

Moreover, Russia and China not only conduct joint military exercises, they have also created economical and technological bonds, and have agreed to carry out projects to build infrastructure which will connect both countries.

These two countries have signed important military agreements. China has committed to spending billions of US dollars to buy some of the most modern equipment the Russian army has.

However, everything isn’t quite as pleasant as it sounds. Both powers may have come together, but there are still many elements that separate them, or might potentially weaken this unity.

For one, China wants to be important and influential in international politics and that implies becoming the leader of Central Asia. This is something Russia certainly doesn’t want. In their view, the ex-Soviet states in the region have to remain under the influence of Moscow.

And then there is the issue with some of Russia’s partners, like India. Russia is the largest weapons supplier in India, and obviously, Beijing doesn´t like this at all.

So, even though these two countries are trying to get closer and are supporting each other against the US, we shouldn’t expect a very solid relation between them. After all, China is eventually going to try to become the leader in this relationship and Russia won’t just accept that.

Going back to Trump’s approach toward Russia, is his plan a feasible one? To be honest, it does not seem likely.

But despite this, if Trump wants to earn the trust of Moscow, he will have to make some concessions which would be difficult to accept in Washington, for example, elimination of sanctions, giving in on Ukraine and Syria, the end of the anti-missile shield among others.

This is the reason why Obama preferred a strategy of surrounding China by reaching agreements with the country's neighbours: India, Vietnam, Malaysia etc. And in this strategy the TPPA is key, which was then blocked by Trump when he arrived in the White House, only to be replaced by China’s own Obor initiative driven by Beijing’s ambition.

From the cancellation of TPPA, to Obor initiative, either way both have pros and cons. I guess that is why we are looking forward to building a stronger Asean bloc.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

Firstly, we would like to thank the associations for their respective views in helping the government to reduce the number of smokers in Malaysia.

To set the record straight, we would like to stress that the primary objective of the smoking ban is to protect people especially non-smokers from second-hand smoke. The argument put forth by the associations on more effective strategies to reduce the number of smokers in the country is less relevant and missing the point because it is not main reason of the ban. Hence, the discussion has strayed away from the key focus which is to protect people from tobacco smoke. This is done in accordance to Article 8 of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) and Regulation 11 of the Control of Tobacco Product Regulations 2004.

Protecting people from tobacco smoke is just one of the several strategies recommended by WHO which includes offering help to tobacco use, warning about the dangers of tobacco, enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, raising tobacco taxes and combatting illicit trade of tobacco products.

Smokers should only smoke in private places, respecting the rights of non-smokers, particularly our children. Restaurants, coffee shops and hawker stalls are public areas frequented by public including children and pregnant women. Such public places should be free from any forms of tobacco smoking. The interests and rights of the non-smokers and children to a smoke-free environment should supersede the individual rights to smoke openly in public areas, for one simple reason because second-hand smoke kills!

According to the World Health Organization, second-hand smoke is the smoke that fills restaurants, offices or other enclosed spaces when people burn tobacco products like cigarettes. There are more than 4000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, of which at least 250 are known to be harmful and more than 50 are known to cause cancer. There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.

In adults, second-hand smoke causes diseases like heart attack, stroke and various types of cancers. In pregnant women, it causes low birth weight. Almost half of children regularly breathe air polluted by tobacco smoke in public places. In young children, second-hand smoke causes sudden death, and in 2004, 28 per cent of deaths among children were attributable to second-hand smoke.

We disagree to the stated opinion that the welfare of small businesses would be affected by the blanket smoking ban. There should not be any competitive advantage to any particular eatery as all eateries are equally affected. Instead, should some eateries have smoking zones or rooms, this would create an unfair niche for bigger business owners who can afford them and to the detrimental economic consequences on the small business owners. This shall not be the case and indeed, there are evidences that smoke-free restaurants actually attract more customers.

So, no, this banning of smoking at eateries is not about the smokers. It is about protecting the people especially the non-smokers particularly children, to a smoke-free environment while enjoying their meals. We do agree that law enforcement would be a challenge considering the high number of eateries in the country. We, therefore urge the public to express their disapproval politely, at least to the restaurants’ staffs, should someone smokes at any eateries beginning from 1 January 2019. It is high time to start “denormalising” cigarette smoking in our society.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 13 — Some people may argue why the present prime minister is so keen to forge a close relationship with Japan and continue to emulate them even though he did the same when he was first in power a long time ago.

The answers might be different for each of us and it depends on what we think. Certainly, one of the reason is to bring more advance technology and cultivate high-value manufacturing activities in Malaysia. Other reasons might be emulating Japanese culture which is synonym with preseverence, enthusiastic, and civilised society.

Nevertheless, there are actually hidden reasons behind it. The economic difficulties that have beset the world has become a major reasons of his action. Furthermore, the potential impact of the US-China trade war on global economy has pushed him forward with business-friendly policy to ensure Malaysia will enjoy benefits from the disputes.

Looking at the current news, the trade war has adversely impact China’s economy and push many companies to shift some or all of their production to other countries. For instance, there are at least four huge Japanese firms have confirmed to move production out of China, in response to the ongoing trade war between US and China. Four of them are Asahi Kasei, Komatsu, Iris Ohyama and Mitsubishi Electric that have shifted their production of goods that are shipped to the United States from China to other countries.

In view of this, based on facts and arguement aforementioned, it justifies Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s action to forge close relationship with Japan in luring more Japanese firms to move their operation in Malaysia.

More importantly, it shows his brilliant idea in making Malaysia as alternative for manufactureres from other countries as well especially US and Europe that are operating in China by using Japan as a stepping stone since Japan is part of the US trade allies which also includes other advanced economies such as UK, Germany, France and Canada.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOV 12 — The Malaysian Dental Association welcomes the tax on sugary drinks. It is a small nod on the part of the government in recognising the role of sugar in the deteriorating health of our citizens.

Kudos also to our health minister in his Deepavali greeting in Tamil which included gentle advice not to overindulge our sweet tooth.

This small nod in taxing sugary drinks pales in significance to the enormity of our national health report card which has marked us as the fattest people of Asia with the fastest growing diabetic rate in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia.

One of the major factors is our national obsession in super sweetening all our food and drinks all the way even to our soya sauce.

Thus the small tax on sugary drinks may be a timely, though long delayed rap on the national knuckles. Before we keep patting each other on our backs, we should recognize that we will need to move towards a tax on sugar at source and also educate our young at school and widely disseminate to the public the deleterious effects of added sugar to our food and drinks.

Only a meaningful tax on sugar and a sustained well planned and informed campaign against excessive consumption of sugar can make a dent on tooth loss and diabetes and all the concomitant diseases tied to it.

It will surprisingly enhance our quality of life and food and also lower healthcare costs substantially.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 12 — In our conflicts over Malaysia’s proposed ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), we are muddling the basic and oversimplifying the complex.

The basic question is: Does Article 153 allow for pro-Bumiputera programmes to be rolled back over time, as the policy achieves its goals? The answer is yes.

Underlying this premise, however, are more complex matters related to article 153.

Unfortunately, where we should be more broad-minded, we tend to be simplistic. Both sides of the debate — defenders of Bumiputera “special position” and advocates of the “legitimate interests of other communities” — superimpose onto Article 153 their own inclinations, presumptions, and misconceptions.

Let’s backtrack. ICERD allows for temporary race-based affirmative action, but maintains reservations toward permanent implementation of such special measures. Malaysia can ratify ICERD and continue with Bumiputera programmes, but perpetual implementation may be questioned. That’s it.

Abolition of 153 does not arise. Immediate elimination of pro-Bumiputera programmes is not on the drawing board. Such loaded language and dire spectres inflame passions and incite overreaction.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad promises that the government will consult interest groups and stakeholders. It’s a good idea to consult the constitution too. The written word matters, and unlike people who change what they think and say, the constitution’s contents are manifestly inked. And as I said, in this case, there’s no need at all to not bring up the idea of rewriting or erasing.

Amidst the proliferation of comments and reactions on the subject, no one has referred to the specific contents and language of 153. Both sides basically stick to two words in drawing lines in the sand: “special position” versus “legitimate interests.” What special position entails is somewhat clear, but the implications of legitimate interests are utterly vague.

It is not about a group’s special rights; all citizens have equal rights. This point is clarified now and again. The morphing of special position into special rights is unhelpful.

However, a more subtle but also unhelpful interpretation presumes that the provisions strike a balance, allowing for pro-Bumiputera preferences but also taking care of other communities. Conventional stances on 153 would like it to be so much more than it is.

Here’s what the Article actually says.

153(1): “It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.”

153(2): “...the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions” in the public service, scholarships and training, and permits and licences.

The formulation of 153 was a painstaking process. The Reid commission did not, and probably could not, arrive at a specific definition and scope of legitimate interests of other communities.

We have filled this vacuum with two main interpretations. First, the legitimate interests phrase, coupled with 153’s condition that the proportion of quotas and reservations should be “reasonable,” are regarded as a check against overreach. Thus, 67 per cent quotas are ok, 90 per cent or 100 per cent are not.

This is a valid argument, but we should be mindful that there is nothing in Article 153 stipulating proportionality. One can make the case that proportionate quotas are the most legitimate or reasonable, but there are no literal constitutional grounds for that.

Highly pertinent to the ICERD matter, though, is one unambiguous implication: The minority legitimate interests clause does not provide grounds for rolling back racial preferences over time, when they have achieved their objectives.

Moreover, stressing the minority legitimate interests clause easily gets out of hand, because it comes across, or can be taken and twisted, as an ominous threat to Bumiputera policies.

A second, less frequently uttered, position draws on 153 (4), which also appears to safeguard minority legitimate interests. This clause states: “the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall not deprive any person of any public office held by him or of the continuance of any scholarship, exhibition or other educational or training privileges or special facilities enjoyed by him.”

Read closer, though, and we should see that these protections specifically apply to things already in possession. If anyone already holds a contract, license or job, that opportunity cannot be arbitrarily taken away or discontinued.

Evidently, Article 153 was crafted with a view to manage the immediate transition to Merdeka — specifically, by ensuring that contract renewals would not be undermined, and persons already employed would not be dismissed, and property already held would not be confiscated.

But it does not provide any principles or guidelines for the issuance of new licences and allocation of new property that arose after Merdeka, and that continually arise until today.

Article 153’s anachronisms limit its force and relevance of “legitimate interests” as a basis to protect minorities.

A more constructive way to engage Article 153, as I have argued previously, is to focus on a routinely overlooked clause. 153(2) stipulates that Bumiputera special position is to be safeguarded through reservations and quotas “as may be necessary.”

In other words, preferential interventions can be enforced if they are necessary — if the socioeoconomic disadvantages of the Bumiputeras persist. When the disadvantage is reduced, and Bumiputera capability, competitive and confidence are broadly developed, the preference can be rolled back. Where need-based targeting can replace race-based targeting — particularly in education – we can modify existing programmes without touching Article 153.

Let’s stop framing the debate as special position versus legitimate interests; Article 153 cannot resolve these tensions. Let’s instead chart a passage forward by focusing on the socioeconomic conditions of the Bumiputeras, and on the achievements of affirmative action and on ways to make it more effective. Harping on its shortcomings and failures divides and alienates.

But don’t take my word for it. Stop relying on casual readings or non-readings. Dig in and grasp Article 153. In the ICERD ratification process, should Malaysia pursue it, the specific contents will surely come to light.

The international community will read it, and it will reflect poorly on us if non-Malaysians

NOVEMBER 12 — Last week, I was one of 9.4 million people to receive an email from Cathay Pacific, warning me that my data was stolen. The airline, which saw its share price take a beating due to this data breach, kindly warned me to be alert for phishing emails that attempt to scam me.

You may think you are safe because you haven't flown on Cathay Pacific, or British Airways, or done business with any of the global companies that recently reported data breaches. You are not.

None of Malaysia's top 30 listed companies, including banks and telcos, have fully set up the defences needed to prevent fraudsters from using their domains to send you phishing emails. These 30 companies are just a fraction of Malaysia's 261,000 businesses that have online presences such as corporate websites on the Internet. Indeed, the stock exchange Bursa Malaysia has not done so itself.

At least one of Malaysia’s most popular online shopping sites has also left its domain unprotected, and left a large number of Malaysia’s 15.3 million online shoppers vulnerable to receiving scam emails using its name.

These companies have not prevented the unauthorised use of their email domain to protect people from spam, fraud, and phishing.

In contrast, Monash University Malaysia, one of Malaysia’s top private universities, has done better, setting up a strict sender authentication framework. This means it is quite difficult for anyone to impersonate the university and send you a fake email from a spoofed @monash.edu.my address.

Many companies have put in place firewalls, anti-spam and anti-virus tools, and some even may encrypt their emails. These measures do give their own email users – their staff, top management and company directors — some but not always full protection.

Encryption means scrambling the contents of emails, so confidential information is not easily readable. Firewalls help prevent attacks from outside, and antivirus prevents infection by certain kinds of malware. Spam filters protect companies’ own email users from junk email as well as some phishing attempts.

Generally, these are insufficient to prevent sophisticated scammers from pretending to be these companies and using valuable brand names to attack other people through email. To get the right protection, companies need to implement the three email security standards known as SPF, DKIM, and DMARC.

If you want to check if your employer or company needs sender authentication, try the free tools on phishingscorecard.com and check whether your SPF, DKIM or DMARC settings have been set. There are many service providers including dmarcian.com, which Fedelis Sdn Bhd represents in Malaysia, that will advise companies on how to set up and maintain these security standards effectively.

Without sender authentication, it is laughably easy to impersonate them and trick the unwary public into transferring money, or revealing personal information, or revealing your bank account passwords. If this happens, these companies could see their share prices drop like Cathay Pacific did, and damage the value of their brands.

Even a mischief-maker could wreak havoc. I know of one case where a spoofed email was sent, cancelling a big company meeting as a prank. Criminals or pranksters, they could even pretend to be a federal agency like the JPJ and send you all manner of fake emails.

So what can be done to improve email security?

First, whether as an individual or a company, ensure that you are using a world class email service, such as Office365, which provides sophisticated technology to help identify and stop phishing attempts, and uses standards like SPF, DKIM and DMARC to protect you, your company and its customers.

Second, ensure your own domain is protected by SPF, DKIM and DMARC, to prevent fraudsters from using it to target your own staff, or your customers who may receive emails they think is from you. Companies must not only deploy these standards, but also ensure the settings are correct. Of the top 30 Malaysian listed companies mentioned above, none has setup sender authentication fully or properly.

It's easy to blame the victims for falling for phishing emails. But this should be shared by those companies that don't stop the phishing from happening. It's probably what caused Cathay Pacific's data breach in the first place.

* Vincent Choy is a senior consultant with Fedelis Sdn Bhd, and has been a Microsoft Most Valued Professional since 2014.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 10 — The foundation of a functioning democracy is based on three branches; legislative, judiciary and executive. These branches are designed to be independent from one another to prevent any concentration of powers.

This separation of powers is crucial in ensuring check and balance and these branches must hold the highest standards of transparency and accountability.

In April 2018, Chief Justice Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif was reported at the launch of The Malaysian Judgement Portal saying, “All court proceedings in the country, except for sensitive cases involving minors or sexual offences are open to the general public. Judgements and orders are for all accounts and purposes, public information”.

The parliament too keeps records of the debates and speeches which take place in the August House in which hansards are made public and debates are telecasted live online even if the quality of debates are sometimes silly and irrational

In short, the judiciary allows public access and scrutiny, the legislative allows public access and scrutiny — heavy scrutiny if I may add but not the executive.

This branch of government consisting of about 20+ ministers whose decisions will have direct implications to the lives of more than 31 million people does not allow public access to their Cabinet meeting minutes.

This is wrong and must be undone.

Cabinet meeting minutes must be made public to allow people to access the discussion and directly engage the issues head on. It will allows greater public participation in drawing up policies and would pave way for better process of consultations between the government and all the stakeholders and finally will lead to an inclusive decisions.

The minutes should be made public as it will be advantageous to the ministers as it adds credibility in earning the trust of the people. Stakeholders can gauge the level of understanding and be better prepared to engage ministers. The minutes should also be made public so no ministers can even attempt to mislead the public outside.

Their positions and opinions on issues will be recorded and the public will hold them accountable. Certainly, exceptions are allowed when it involves sensitive issues such as national security.

The mechanism for the minutes’ publication can be sorted out — discussions on national security can be redacted and be fully disclosed after a period of time.

Point is that no man or woman shall be left behind, even if they don’t walk in the corridors of power.

Freedom of information must be guaranteed at all level of administration. Let’s see the end of the routine minister’s reply, “the issue of being discussed in cabinet and announcement will be made once the discussion is concluded”.

Ultimately, Malaysia needs to walk towards the direction of transparency and accountability and in tandem with the spirit of Malaysia Baru, let’s not be afraid to walk this path even if no country has walked.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOV 9 — The Education Minister’s announcement that the government will study a free breakfast scheme for schoolchildren in the B40 group, should be lauded.

Researchers have found that school meal programmes like free breakfasts have positive effects on both health and cognitive outcomes. A 2007 review of 18 different studies discovered that school meal programmes in developing countries not only improved physical growth in disadvantaged schoolchildren, but also saw an average increase in school attendance and mathematics performance. In the United Kingdom, free ‘breakfast clubs’ in primary schools were shown to boost reading, writing and maths results by the equivalent of two months’ progress over the course of a year. In Bangladesh, its School Feeding Programme raised school enrolment by 14.2 percent, increased school attendance by about 1.3 days a month, and increased test scores by 15.7 percent points.

Implementing a similar programme will be crucial to tackle food insecurity in Malaysian schools. The Ministry of Education’s own guidelines for its Supplementary Food Programme [Rancangan Makanan Tambahan (RMT)] stated that it found around 35 percent of primary school pupils display signs of undernutrition, while between 15-20 percent of schoolchildren experience ‘invisible hunger’ from skipping meals.

But the Minister’s idea must go further to cover primary school children from all income levels, not just those in the B40 group.

Why?

Malaysian children suffer from what experts call ‘the double-burden of malnutrition’, where both undernutrition and overnutrition (obesity) exist in the same population. But this double burden is not just a ‘B40 problem’ – the reality is far more complicated than that. While it is more prevalent among the poor, child stunting - which is an indicator for chronic malnutrition in children - cuts across all income levels in Malaysia. In 2016, 29.8 per cent of children below five years from households with less than RM1000 monthly income were stunted, while 17.4 percent of children in households earning more than RM 5000 were stunted – both figures significantly higher than the average 6.9 percent rate of other upper middle income countries. When it comes to obesity, research has shown that the prevalence of obesity rises with income. This means that tackling nutrition issues in children cannot be confined to only the B40 group.

Secondly, widening free breakfast to all children regardless of income can help defeat the unintended consequences of stigmatisation that may arise from an approach that only targets children from B40 households. Studies have shown that most children are aware of cultural stereotypes by 10 years old, while children from stigmatised groups experience this at an even younger age. In 2015, 29% of 1.4 million eligible children in the United Kingdom did not participate in the Free School Meal programme – the programme was deemed by children to be embarrassing. Children described these free meals as ‘a very specific and visible issue of difference which clearly leads to fears of them being labelled and bullied’. In Canada, it was the parents who were resistant to send children to school food programmes due to this stigma.

In 2003, New York City made school breakfast free for all students regardless of income. Researchers found that participation in this programme increased, with a rise in children who were already previously eligible for free meals.

Moving away from an income-tested breakfast would help dispel the sense that such programmes are only for the poor, and ensure that it does not push away children who are most in need of it. It also removes the stigma of parents having to ‘declare’ their poverty in order to obtain aid.

Thirdly, a universal approach would be time- and cost-efficient and help avoid the usual pitfalls associated with targeting based on income or need.

While targeted programmes can have ostensibly lower costs and may ensure resources are focussed on more vulnerable groups, a free-for-all breakfast would reduce the administrative costs of verifying the eligibility of recipients. Further, it will lighten the workload of Malaysian teachers already burdened with administrative duties, allowing them to focus on their teaching.

Crucially, a universal breakfast programme can function as a safety net that can, at the very least, guarantee that children have one nutritious meal a day in the event of an unforeseen financial emergency in the family. The Ministry’s existing Rancangan Makanan Tambahan is simply inadequate to perform this role, as it is only available for schoolchildren from households earning less than RM 580-660 a month (figure varies between Semenanjung and Sabah/Sarawak). This is simply a ridiculous threshold that leaves many children unprotected.

It also ensures that the child is protected from the ‘cliff effect’. This is where families can lose important welfare assistance once they gain a very marginal salary rise that takes their household income beyond the targeted income threshold. The value of the assistance that is lost is often larger than the income raise. For example, while a family now earns RM 50 more a month, they may lose hundreds more ringgit worth of welfare aid.

Indeed, it is undeniable that free breakfast for all would cost the government more. However, it represents an opportunity to not only provide for the needs of our children today, but possibly transform the practices and habits of generations to come. During the 1930s in Norway, the government introduced to its universal school meal programme the famous ‘Oslo breakfast’ - bread with margarine, cheese, a glass of milk and a piece of fruit. The prevailing nutrition knowledge of that time posited that a hot meal may be detrimental to schoolchildren’s health and development. Today, the Oslo breakfast is ubiquitous as the Norwegian meal of choice not only in school lunches, but also at work. In 2017, Norway was classed the world’s healthiest country - the outcome of astute policymaking of which the Oslo breakfast was a small but effective component.

With that being said, a universal breakfast scheme for all primary schoolchildren in Malaysia would not even be too expensive, especially after accounting for administrative costs saved from not having to establish a new means-based verification system.

Using the highest figure of RM 3 per student under the existing Rancangan Makanan Tambahan allocation, breakfast for all 2,685,403 primary school students with 200 schooling days will cost approximately RM 1.6 billion per annum - not even 3 percent of the Ministry of Education’s RM 60.2 billion budget. Other interventions beyond the space of this discussion - such as incorporating breakfast into the classroom during teaching hours - can also be explored to further enhance the outcomes of this universal breakfast scheme.

It is a small investment that can help secure the future of our children.

Surely they are worth it?

*Derek Kok is a public policy researcher at a Malaysian think tank.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOV 9 — The Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP) and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) are alarmed over proposals for two hotels in Penang Hill which could contravene the Special Area Plan for Penang Hill (SAP) and pose serious risks due to landslides and soil erosion not only on the Hill but also have downstream impacts.

According to press reports, Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow said one of the hotels would be located behind the Convalescent Bungalow, while the other would be built along the slopes near the cafe in Laluan Kuli.

The CM claims that the hotels would be built according to the SAP guidelines.

However, we are shocked to read reports that the CM has said that one the hotels will be five storeys high with a 200 room capacity behind the Convalescent Bungalow, it will begin construction next year and “will be built higher than what is set out in the SAP”, according to the CM.

How can the State allow the violation of the SAP in contravention of the law, as the SAP has legal force?

According to the CM, the plan for the hotel has been delayed as the construction area involves forest reserves and that has to be addressed. The second hotel is reported to be at the planning stage.

While the CM has said that the safety aspects and the landslides which have been happening in the Penang Hill area will be taken into account, we are shocked that the hotels will be built nevertheless, despite the incidence of over 200 landslides last year that have occurred on Penang Hill itself. There are also other landslides outside Penang Hill.

Moreover, the recent Bukit Kukus landslide tragedy last month and the Granito landslide in the Tanjung Bunga area last year have clearly revealed the incompetence of the authorities at the State and local level in dealing with developments on hillslopes. There is a glaring lack of capacity on the part of the State and the local authorities to oversee and monitor development on hills and hillslopes. There is also the inability of developers and contractors of projects in areas of the two landslide tragedies to carry out their jobs adequately, otherwise these tragedies would not have happened.

The SAP recognises Penang Hill as an environmentally sensitive area with very special characteristics, and given this fact, the State ought to give priority in rehabilitating the landslide affected areas in Penang Hill, rehabilitate the degraded areas and take all measures to protect the Hill, rather than allowing more the development of more hotels in an already fragile environment.

Clearly, the Penang State and the local authorities are not learning the tragic lessons of recent landslides that have involved the loss of 20 human lives already, with damaging consequences to the surrounding environment.

CAP and SAM call on the Chief Minister not to proceed with the construction and plans for the two hotels in Penang Hill in view of the extreme sensitivity of area which is highly landslide prone. This is the prudent approach as nature has already taught the State serious lessons. Let’s not make further mistakes that would cost further lives and environmental degradation.

Meanwhile, the Chief Minister should also make public the plans and proposals of the two hotels and any other commercial activities being planned for Penang Hill so that the public can give its views on these plans. Penang Hill is a precious part of Penang’s heritage and attraction as the Pearl of the Orient, and it should not be sacrificed for narrow commercial interests.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 8 — Every nation has got its own culture, traditions, customs and faiths, followed by followers of respective religion. Based only on these, and the aspirations and the requirements of the majority of the people of the country, the constitutions of the nations are written.

No constitution of a nation is exactly similar to that of another country. Considering all these facts and factors, it would be most illogical and totally unacceptable for Malaysia to sign the “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” (ICERD), which in essence calls for abolition of racial and religious privileges and priority of the majority of the population, and the monarchical system.

I am sure our PM, being an intelligent man with vast and profound knowledge of world politics, and with astute farsightedness, would never in the least agree to such unworthy and senseless agreement, which will only bring about catastrophic and disastrous eventualities ― knowing very well how the minority in Uganda, who were controlling the economy, were expelled by Idi Amin in just 24 hours; how General Rabuka of Fiji Islands toppled the government controlled by the minority overnight, and confiscated the vast wealth owned by the minority; how the Burmese leaders confiscated all the wealth and properties owned by the minority, who were controlling the economy of Burma, and expelled all of them to their country of origin! All these happened because the majority were trampled by the minorities.

Signing ICERD will only bring about head-on collision with many clauses in our constitution, resulting in chaos and calamity in our country which has been very peaceful so far. Our constitution was drawn giving due consideration to the plights and aspirations of the majority of population, and their religion; and to the many centuries-old monarchical system.

Any interference or violation ― no matter how small or minimal they are ― to the existing constitution would only flare up the sentiments and anger of the sector, who have been enjoying their “rights” all these years. In other words, the bumiputras who form the majority of population in our country would be rudely awakened to the loss of all their rightful privileges, thus far enjoyed.

The only way ― the only formula ― for peaceful co-existence of the various races in our country is to always maintain the special rights of bumiputeras; accept the monarchical system in this country; and accept that Islam is the official religion of the Federation, in which people of other faiths can practise their religion freely.

Signing ICERD would only bring about turmoil and downfall to the hitherto progressive nation of ours. It would be akin to digging grave to the thus far peaceful co-existence among the races.

Maybe eventually, the United Nations would proclaim that all countries in the world should have a uniform constitution, to promote unity among people!! Are we going to accept that?

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 8 — There are many challenges to the health of our children in Malaysia. The health needs and challenges have dramatically changed in the past four to five decades. Previously they were predominantly infection related and concerned with mortality of small children. However today, problems that cause significant morbidity have emerged as equally important.

This article outlines three major unaddressed and often unrecognised challenges to the health of our children. If we do not address these health challenges for our children, they may not live the same lifespan that we have come to expect for ourselves.

1. Killing our children softly with our cars

Air Pollution is a major threat to our children’s health. Every day we are breathing in not just particulate matter (PM10 — smaller than 10 micrometers) but more importantly noxious chemicals (sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide) that will damage our lungs and heart over time.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently stated that 90 per cent of the world’s children breathe toxic air every day with serious health and development risks. They estimate that 600,000 children died from respiratory infections caused by polluted air in 2016.

Recent data from China has shown that exposure to air pollution can have serious negative effects on our cognitive performance (Xin Zhang 2018, PNAS). Children are more susceptible to air pollution as they breathe more rapidly than adults and have developing brains and bodies.

Since the 1990s we have had growing air pollution in most of our major cities in Malaysia, to the extent that we have accepted it as a fact of life. We like to call our air quality “haze” when we should term it “smog.”

The Breathe Life Organisation calculates, from available data, that the average air quality in the Klang Valley is 2.5 times above WHO safe levels. It also estimates that the health burden to Malaysia exceed 10,000 deaths per year.

While we would like to blame the air quality on open burning from our neighbours, the fact is that the majority of the air pollution comes from our cars. There is no way we can block out these chemicals, not even in our air-conditioned houses. Air pollution is an invisible, slow killer lurking in our homes.

The solution to air pollution is for us to aim for a 50 to 70 per cent reduction in cars and motorbikes. Due to our government’s desire to earn revenue by selling us cars and taxing us on highways, they have failed to establish a meaningful public transport system.

Hence we have become addicted to our cars and motorbikes. We need to go back to a culture where public transport, cycling and walking are valued. We need a highly efficient and cheap (government subsidised) public transport system that is bus based and not an LRT.

In addition we need enforcement to ban all single occupant vehicles in cities. It is also important to advocate against the development of a third car in Malaysia. Electrical cars are a useful solution but only if we generate clean energy. Currently the majority of our electricity production is polluting.

2. Feeding our children plastics

Plastics have become pervasive. They permeate every aspect of our lives and have resulted from our enormous plastic pollution of the environment. This pollution returns to us in the form of micro-plastics (plastic pieces measuring <5 mm and often not very visible to the naked eye).

One third of all fish that we eat has ingested plastics. Most of our water supply (>80 per cent) and table salt (90 per cent) has micro-plastics. The biggest known source of micro-plastics that we consume is bottled water (90 per cnet).

The impact of this on our children’s long term health is uncertain; but it cannot be good. To ingest such a large quantity of micro-plastics over a long period of time can only add chemicals to our body that are potentially toxic to our system.

The government is attempting to make changes by controlling plastic usage but these changes are happening far too slow. It is imperative that we do not wait for government or other authorities or legislation for change. It's important that the average Malaysian make change now to save the environment and thereby saving our children and their future health.

Stop using, buying, throwing away plastics. Avoid goods with plastic packaging; bring our own containers and bags when we go to tapau food or groceries; don’t buy plastic bottled water. If we all cooperate, we can reduce plastic waste by more than 60 per cent and offer our children and animals a future.

3. Screen addiction

One serious threat, not just to the physical health of our children, but more to their emotional psychological and mental health is screens. Screens dominate our lives — whether they be hand-phones, tablets, televisions or billboards.

Screen, screen, screens everywhere — screens in the morning when we wake up, screens at school and work, screens for entertainment, screens when we eat, screens in the car, screens. We study, work, eat, sleep and dream screens. This is truly the universal addiction of our times.

There is data from good animal studies to show that the radiation from excessive handphone use is linked to cancer of the brain and cancer of other organs (National Toxicology Programme, USA 2018). How this translates to humans is uncertain but the usage of handphones in our young children is very large.

One study by the Clinical Research Centre at Perak showed that two-year-olds used screens for an average of six hours a day. Numerous studies have documented the enormous emotional mental and psychological impact of screens on children. They make our children feel restless, distracted, lonely, depressed, disconnected and disempowered.

We cannot act on our children’s screen addiction until adults and parents deal with their own addiction to handphones. International guidelines advocate avoiding all screens (including TV) in young children under two years and limiting older children to one hour a day.

Parents and family need to spend screen free times together on a regular weekly basis — perhaps a morning out on the weekend with no internet connection and silenced phones. It is important that we bring back the communication and communion between individuals, especially families.

Face-to-face friendship and relationships is vital if we want to deal with the loneliness and suicide epidemics that are pervasive in our society.

These emerging challenges of our time have the ability to significantly impact children’s health and their future. It's important that we deal with them today so they do not have an epidemic of illnesses in the future — chronic lung and heart disease and possibly cancers will grow exponentially in our community.

We need to work on prevention. There is no way that the Ministry of Health or any other agency can make a significant change without societal change. Meaningful change needs to be made by the individual person and family and that will influence society at large.

It's important that every parent and child and family becomes an advocate to our neighbour and society at large. We must talk about and recognise these hazards to our children's health and our own health.

These three challenges are intertwined. As we have damaged and trashed our environment, cemented our gardens and polluted our air, our children have retreated into buildings and homes to be occupied with virtual reality.

We need to become a nation conscious of and advocating for a clean environment by our own life style change. We need to stop the destruction of our cities and homes and bring back green lungs for our children. We need safe places where children can go out and play and run about as an alternative to screens.

We need to make our streets safe and cool for cycling and walking by planting many, many more trees. Our own homes need to be green. If we do not work now the future health systems will never be able to cope with the volume of unwell adults and children. We need to work together, today, to offer our children a meaningful future.

* Datuk Dr Amar-Singh HSS is a senior consultant paediatrician.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 8 — The Malaysian government confirmed last month that it plans to ratify ICERD — International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. While the Pakatan Harapan government is seen to be progressing on institutional and anti-corruption reforms, ratifying ICERD will be a test of the government’s resolve to address race and inclusivity.

Some interest groups and political parties have vocally opposed ratifying ICERD. They argue ratifying ICERD would erode the constitutional special position of Malays and Bumiputeras. To address these fears, proponents of ratifying ICERD have responded in at least two ways.

One response is that ICERD opponents have misinterpreted the Federal Constitution. Perhaps an implied point is that many racial policies defended by ICERD opponents are not in fact guaranteed by the constitution. Many persons more learned than myself have elaborated on this point.

A second response is that ICERD opponents are overplaying the impact of ratifying ICERD. Even if ICERD is ratified, it would have no legal impact, the Federal Constitution would supersede ICERD, and ICERD can be ratified with reservations. The government has also ensured opponents that ICERD will not affect key Malay and Bumiputera institutions.

This response — that ratifying ICERD will have no legal impact — needs further elaboration. It leaves observers ambivalent (“why bother?”) and ICERD opponents suspicious (“is there a hidden agenda?”).

In this essay, I attempt to explain why ratifying ICERD — or any other United Nations (UN) human rights convention — is worthwhile (without any hidden agenda), even if ratification won’t give the convention legal force.

Ratifying ICERD is worthwhile because it introduces a framework for civil discourse on racial discrimination, that is systematic, participatory, and substantive. Such civil discourse is (or ought to be) the bedrock of democratic policy-making.

Good faith

From an international law perspective, treaties are technically binding but are generally not enforceable in countries — relying instead on a government’s good faith to be implemented. (Refer to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.)

When it comes to enforceability, what really matters is national law. Malaysia is a “dualist” state (as opposed to “monist”). This means that any international convention Malaysia ratifies will not have the force of law, unless Parliament passes national legislation to the effect.

This position is confirmed by the 2014 Court of Appeal ruling in AirAsia Berhad v Rafizah Shima binti Mohamed Aris, which held that although Malaysia has ratified Cedaw (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) “Cedaw did not have the force of law in Malaysia because the same was not enacted into any local legislation” and “for a treaty to be operative and enforceable in Malaysia, it requires legislation by Parliament.”

Unless national legislation is passed, ICERD it will not legally affect any law, policy, institution, or programme. And any national legislation cannot override the Federal Constitution. So why ratify ICERD?

Framework for civil discourse

The real value of ratifying ICERD — or any other UN human rights convention — is the introduction of a “review process.” When Malaysia ratifies a UN human rights convention, it agrees to be reviewed periodically by an expert committee. The committee monitors Malaysia’s progress implementing the convention.

The expert body associated with ICERD is the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Upon ratifying ICERD, the Committee will periodically review Malaysia on Malaysia’s implementation of ICERD.

The outcome of such a review — comments by the Committee to Malaysia — would not be legally binding. But the review process would facilitate civil discourse that is systematic, participatory, and substantive.

Systematic discourse

The review process will facilitate systematic discourse on racial discrimination, by introducing clear rules of engagement. A review broadly consists of the following steps:

The government (the “state under review”) and stakeholders send written reports to the committee. The reports inform the committee about the status of implementation of the convention.

The government and the Committee engage in public dialog, through a series of written and in-person communications.

The Committee publishes written comments and recommendations to the government.

Reviews occur periodically — ideally every two years in the case of ICERD. An important limitation is that a review only starts when the government chooses to report to the Committee. Malaysia has a poor record of reporting, under the previous government.

Malaysia has ratified three core UN human rights conventions, and has missed every reporting deadline. Malaysia has not reported even once to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, having ratified the CRPD (the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).

We expect the new government to improve on Malaysia’s past tardiness. In any case, civil society can use the government’s failure to report as an opportunity to engage in public discourse.

Participatory

The review process will facilitate participatory discourse — between the government, civil society groups, the public, and the international community.

The government submits a report and engages in public dialog with the Committee. In preparing its report, the government consults with relevant government bodies, civil society groups, and the public.

Civil society groups, statutory bodies (e.g. Suhakam — the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia), and UN agencies can submit reports to the Committee. Groups can consult stakeholders and the public when producing their report. Civil society groups may also have the opportunity to engage with the Committee in-person. Reports and other communications are made public, and can be used for public awareness and advocacy initiatives.

During Malaysia’s most recent review by the Cedaw Committee in 2017-2018, 43 civil society organisations participated by sending (a total of nine) individual or joint submissions. Suhakam also submitted reports. The outcome of the review was highlighted publicly in various channels.

Substantive

The review process is designed to be substantive, and not (or less) political. Committee members are nominated by their home countries, and are voted in by UN State parties. Once elected, Committee members serve in their personal capacity — they do not represent their countries or governments. This is meant to ensure Committee members are impartial, and focus on substantive policies, rather than global or national politics.

Groups participate in the review process mainly by submitting written reports to the Committee. This format encourages groups to formulate evidence-based arguments on policies — as opposed to political posturing.

Further, as Committee members do not have a personal interest in the country being reviewed, their comments help provide a non-parochial viewpoint to national policies.

Commitment to discourse

I’ve attempted to explain why ICERD is worth ratifying, even though ratification will not make ICERD enforceable. I argued that ratifying ICERD is worthwhile because it would facilitate systematic, participatory, and substantive civil discourse on racial discrimination — through the review process based on the convention. I also gave an overview of the review process, explaining how it would facilitate this civil discourse.

This reasoning applies not just to ICERD, but also to any core UN human rights convention. The value of improved civil discourse should not be underestimated. In a democracy, policy decisions ought to be made through civil discourse.

While ICERD is an international mechanism, the discourse generated will largely take place at the national level. This national level discourse will continue when the review process is over. Ratifying ICERD is a commitment to talk. And that makes it worthwhile.

* Yu Ren Chung is a Malaysian human rights activist.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 8 — Industry 4.0 has become key to increasing competitiveness and sustainability for businesses with the emergence of advanced technologies and automation solutions. This era of increased digitisation can add an estimated US$10 billion (RM41.67 billion) to Malaysia’s gross domestic product (GDP).

This has made automation a key government focus as Malaysia seeks to improve its productivity, which still lags behind several regional economies such as China, India and the Philippines.

However, it can be daunting for local companies, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to adopt automation. For one, the equipment can be costly and the technology hard to understand.

Companies also have different needs, making sourcing for the relevant solution another challenge.

Cultivating a Do-It-Yourself mindset

Employing new technology and automation will pave the way towards a progressive future for Malaysia. For this to happen, businesses must cultivate a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) mindset by learning to implement new technology into their processes. Collaborative robots (cobots), robots designed to work side-by-side with employees, are helping businesses do just that.

Cobots are widely deployed in numerous industries. They can undertake various applications including pick-and-place, machine tending, packaging and palletising as well as process tasks; gluing, dispensing, or welding. Due to their ease of programming in carrying out multiple tasks across diverse settings, Malaysia’s key industries — electronics and automotive — stand to benefit greatly from cobots.

How are they “collaborative”? Cobots have in-built safety features, making it safe for people to work in close proximity without having to install safety barriers (subject to risk assessment). Cobot’s intuitive interface simplifies programming so that even low-skilled employees can easily use them.

allowed employees to work safely in close proximity with them and relieved workers from handling

high risk and hazardous tasks.

True cost of cobots

There is often a misconception that automation involves substantial costs. In reality, cobots offer manufacturers a financially less daunting way to embrace automation. They have minimal integration costs due to their ease of use, flexibility, small footprint easy programming and the ability to update and maintain technology in-house.

UR end users can easily update their cobot software by simply downloading the upgrade on UR’s support website and following a two-step guideline.

Cobots also offer flexible deployment through modular implementation. This allows businesses to implement the technology at an easy pace and process, with no major overhaul required.

Companies use metrics such as payback period and return on investment (ROI) to evaluate whether to make a business investment but they should take into consideration the long-term financial benefits of cobots which outweigh the initial investment.

The payback period looks at the amount of time (in years) it takes for the amount invested in the automation process to be repaid. Using this metric, however, does not consider future gains beyond the break-even period.

ROI, on the other hand, looks at the percentage of net profit of the investment in relation to the costs involved. Typically, firms calculate ROI based on direct labour cost savings and short-term benefits.

Using such metrics disregards more comprehensive financial benefits of automation. This could include material wastage reduction, increase in production efficiency or even a decrease in employment-related expenses. Making a holistic evaluation will help companies understand the wider, long-term financial benefits of automating with cobots.

Nurturing robotics literacy

Bodies such as the SME Association of Malaysia are helping local businesses overcome barriers to technology adoption by providing strategic council and platforms to facilitate knowledge sharing.

The Malaysia Robotics Automation Society has introduced the Global Certification Programme, an industry-academia initiative to certify professionals with qualifications in robotics and automation systems.

The private sector is also doing its bit to encourage robotics adoption. For example, UR launched the UR Academy which offers free high calibre robotics training, with nine online modules on basic programming training for UR robots. Over 20,000 users from 132 countries have signed up to date.

This training programme works in tandem with UR+, an online platform that leverages UR’s global ecosystem of third party developers. The platform offers a plethora of resources from cobot end-effectors and accessories to vision cameras and software.

Increasing competitiveness with cobots

In today’s challenging business environment, automation has become a necessity for businesses to enhance productivity and competitiveness in order to stay sustainable. By tapping on cobot technology, businesses can embrace automation easily, achieving higher productivity, lowering costs and enhancing workers’ wellbeing.

NOVEMBER 8 — Student loan debt is a global phenomenon and a key concern underlying the domestic socio-economy.

Prior to the Malaysian General Election-14 (GE14), the Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition has given a promise to defer the study loan repayment for those earning less than RM4,000 per month. Such promise was exercised by PH right after they took over the Putrajaya.

In July, Wan Saiful, Parti Peribumi candidate in Pendang seat, was appointed the new chairman of National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN). Bold and decisive reforms of the fund corporation are expected with the appointment of a former right-wing think-tanker.

As expected, we witnessed the amends of PTPTN in the country annual budget presented by first-term Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng last week at the lower house.

Obviously, the promises of loan deferment by the Pakatan are broken. However, I opined that the Budget 2019 provides far-sighted strategies to ensure the PTPTN is sustainable to continue to borrow.

There are two significant topical reforms. Firstly, imposing a progressive loan repayment schedule with a percentage ranging from 2 per cent to 15 per cent of the borrowers’ monthly income depending on their income level. Secondly, discounts on the loan will only be given to students from B40 households who have successfully obtained first class honours in their studies instead of waiving the full loan to all first-class recipients.

Such strategies are imperative for reforming the unsustainable fund corporation.

In fact, PTPTN is operating on a model of “revolving fund.” This means that the government will allocate the initial funds in advance, and the PTPTN will lend it to the students, and the loans will only be collected from the debtors six months after the borrower’s graduation ceremony.

In the normal circumstances, borrowers have sufficient grace period to get a job and plan well to fulfil the commitment of debt.

Low repayments, weak databases, discounts and waiving the loans are corrosive bacteria that cause PTPTN scheme to become unsustainable as well as accumulate high debts.

In addition, the weak regulations under the previous ruling had given the impressions to borrowers that the study loan is just some easy money for them to spend extra which doesn’t require to pay back.

Therefore, the idea of mandatory repayment is good. By implementing it, deduction as low as RM20 will be imposed on those who earning RM1,000 per month (a minimum calculation).

It’s not burdensome for fulfilling the obligation of a repayment but indeed a good leap for the PTPTN to reform.

Nonetheless, determination of the repayment rate of distinct income levels must be studied and reviewed precisely by considering the phenomenon of urban poverty.

On the other hand, the progressiveness of past policy which granted loan waiver to all sorts of borrowers without investigating their financial background is questionable.

Various studies conducted overseas shown that students from the middle and upper classes tend to achieve better academic performances due to their socio-economic status. It can be inferred that middle-upper classes are disproportionately represented among first-class honours recipients under the past policy. Such groups are the main benefactors.

As such, it creates disparity as well as social injustice between the middle-upper classes and the bottom classes.

Malaysian need to look at a macro level. It is important to ensure the sustainability of PTPTN as it plays the role of providing funds to allow our human capital been educated and trained to catch the train of next industrial revolution.

There will be another form of disaster if we failed to ensure the standard as well as the supply of our human capital to labour market as it will impact the growth of SMEs, regional development and foreign direct investment.

* Lim Pau Hua is a research analyst at ASLI’s Centre for Public Policy Studies, a think-tank.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 8 — It is indeed heartening to see that in the first national budget of the Pakatan Harapan government, it has taken a bold step to help in the reintegration into society of ex-offenders via a tax incentive for companies to hire them.

We noted that the honourable Minister of Youth and Sports wore a yellow ribbon during the session, signalling his support for efforts to reintegrate this group of people.

For many prisoners who sincerely attempt to turn over a new leaf after they are released, one of the biggest hurdles is the stigma and suspicion that society continues to attach to them.

Many find it difficult to secure jobs or housing leaving them vulnerable to a life of crime again. Although hiring ex-offenders is not always a straightforward affair as they need guidance, coaching and support in order to succeed, our experience as a social work organisation working with them is that it is possible.

A case in point is Sam Kian Sang whose life story has been published in the media before and is an inspiration to many.

With this initiative from the government, we urge private sector businesses and institutions to open their doors to employing ex-offenders who have gone through a rehabilitative process.

Not only will this be economically beneficial for employers and ex-offenders with jobs but it can also help reduce crime by reducing recidivism while fostering a more caring society.

We also noted in this budget that the government has allocated RM100 million for Orang Asli development. This is slightly less than the amount allocated in the previous budget by the then government.

Orang Asli remain the poorest community in Malaysia with over a third living below the poverty line and plagued with disparities in health, education and access to basic amenities compared with the rest of the population.

We are not privy as to how the funds meant for the Orang Asli in the previous Budget was utilised but in the places where we work with the community, villages still lack basic things such as electricity and sealed roads.

Therefore, we urge the Pakatan Harapan government to make extra effort to ensure that the allocated funds in this budget is correctly utilised and independently monitored so that the Orang Asli are not left behind for another 60 years.

We are hopeful that the lives of the Orang Asli and the ex-offenders will significantly improve under the new government. In this regard, our organisation is happy to work with the government through our network with other NGOs, institutions and the private sector to help make these initiatives a success because we have reason to hope based on Pakatan Harapan's commitment to reform and its efforts thus far.

* Wong Young Soon is executive director of Malaysian CARE.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 8 — 1. Only 4.5 per cent of the world's global population of seven billion people live under some kind of full or semi democracy, where elections can be held, and transitions of power permitted, when the incumbent loses its reins of power. The figure, derived from the Freedom Index, is arrived by the Heritage Foundation in Washington but repeated by The Economist in London.

2. What made the report credible was extent to which it was critical of the state of the United States' too, where it's actual standing in the League of Democracies has floundered since the November 2016 election of President Donald Trump.

3. What is left unsaid is the complexity and unique-ness of the royal Institutions. Where monarchs continue to remain as the ceremonial or even constitutional heads of democratic governments, these are the countries that can remain stable — even if the democratic transition is potentially feeble and fraught with risks.

4. On May 9, 2018, Malaysia was one of the first countries, in a long time, to defeat Umno and it's coalition of Barisan National. The new government, under Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed is Pakatan Harapan or the Alliance of Hope.

5. Despite the risky transition of power, the King of Malaysia, and his fellow sultans from nine states that formed the Federation of Malaysia in addition to various British Straits Settlements and two other states of Borneo, namely Sabah and Sarawak, agreed to back the premiership of Dr Mahathir.

6. While it is easy to say that "the rest is history," the fact is May 9 has produced a different kind of democratic Malaysia. One might notice that the LGBT community has become more assertive, with or without any evidence if they actually voted in the 14th general election.

7. One might also notice that the remnants of Umno and PAS, who to this day, remain in denial, that they are rejected by the people, from time to time, insist that they carry the torch and hopes of the country.

8. Take the recent view of Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, who nearly brought the country to sheer moral and financial opprobrium. Najib affirmed, quite unabashedly, that he "no longer wants to be the president of Umno or the Prime Minister of Malaysia." Did it ever cross his mind that it was the people of Malaysia and his own members in Umno who do not want him to be around anymore?

9. Yet, in the frenzied political atmosphere of 3N — negation, neutralisation and nullification of all that Umno and Barisan National ever stood for — it is easy to get carried along with the belief, consequently, a false one that the royal institutions, too, must be subject to the same scrutiny.

10. While Malaysia has no laws on "less majeste” Malaysia does have a Federal Constitution that has Article 153, and other of the such, that protects the rights and privileges of the Malays, without sacrificing the rights of the Non Malays living in domicile in the country as fellow citizens.

11. These are articles that are reflected in the party Constitution of Bersatu, which consequently, allowed Bersatu to drive a stake through the heart of Umno and PAS on May 9, 2018. Instead of protecting the rights of the Malays, Umno and PAS switched to their own self preservation, by forming electoral pact, to split the Malay votes to benefit themselves.

12. Despite these shenanigans, to which they continued to deny to this day, they lost the reins of office and power. With the exception of the state government of Trengganu and Kelantan, which PAS could hold on to, the duo lost their entire Game of Throne.

13. Sadly, and ironically, the triumphalism of the people over the long odds, has also been transformed occasionally into a wild and erratic line against the royal institutions. Such behaviour online, or in hushed whispers, must stop, without which Malaysia would not have a robust constitutional monarchy driven by system of what Dutch political scientist Arend Liphard called a "consociational democracy."

14. In the former, the politics of the country are driven by the respect granted both to the Federal Constitution and monarchy (ie the nine sultans and the king who is elected among them). In the latter, each race and ethnic group, should they so wish, articulate their voices and values through the respective political parties that may seem it fit to represent the Malays or Chinese or Indians born in the country. This of course does not obviate the importance of the Kadazans, Bajaus, Dayaks, Muruts, Melanaus, Penans, and other groups too.

15. Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia or Bersatu has tried to choose the middle road of defending all and sundry, from the Kings to the Malays right down to the common rakyat in both sides of Malaysia across the South China Sea.

16. This is reflected in the Cabinet appointments of Prime Minister Dr Mahathir soon after the victory of Pakatan Harapan of May 9. The Minister of Finance is Lim Guan Eng, a Malaysian of ethnic Chinese stock, whereas the Minister of Economic Affairs is Datuk Seri Azmin Ali. Indeed, the Minister of Human Resources is M Kulasegaran, while the Minister of Multimedia and Communication is Gobind Singh Deo. The Minister of International Trade and Industry is Darryl Leiking from Sabah, while the strategic electoral partner of the ruling government of Pakatan Harapan was Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal, of Bajau descent, who is now the Chief Minister of Sabah.

17. Of course, the Deputy Prime Minister is Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, while Teressa Kok is the Minister of Primary Industries. The list goes on and on but it is the equivalent of the Rainbow Coalition of Ministers under Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

18. Given such circumstances, and colourful combo, that has further produced a successful first budget on November 4, within six months of clearing up the kleptocratic excesses of the previous administration, what one should not — and must not — do is to bring in acrimonious elements of race, religions and royalties through divisive politics.

19. Yet, such agent provocateurs clearly do exist, and thrive, in the internet of Malaysia. Be they sporadic or systematic comments that run into flowing essay(s), some have taken the royalties in particular to task.

20. This is done often in the name of Dr Mahathir, the first commoner to be re-elected twice to the Prime Minister's Office, yet throughout the political career of Dr Mahathir, he has never indulged in any form of anti monarchical or Republican politics. To the degree laws and legislations were needed to bring some degree of parity and fairness to the Federal Constitution, or constitutional monarchy, as was the case in 1983, and again in 1994, Dr Mahathir merely emphasised the importance of the rule of law, not rule above and beyond law.

21. Take the sultanate of Perak, for instance. Despite the clear separation of power and politics, Sultan Nazrin Shah was one of the first to launch his veiled criticism of corruption in 2015. Other sultans, such as the royal households of Kelantan, Johor and Negeri Sembilan, did not retreat to their respective chambers either.

22. At critical points in time, the Sultan of Johor and his crown prince, spoke out against the racial excesses of Jamal Yunus, the leader of the far right of Umno. By tamping Jamal Yunus down, the notorious elements of Umno could not surface at all. May 9, in this sense, was as much a victory for the royalties as it was for the Rakyat.

23. Elsewhere, even when projects like Forrest City in Johor were subject to greater scrutiny, the Sultanate of Johor did not encourage Country Heights, a public listed company of Hong Kong, that is a major property investor in mainland China and Malaysia, to over react. Facts and figures were trudged out to recalibrate the narrative, so that more foreign direct investment (FDI) from all corners of the world would stream their way into the whole country.

24. Indeed, when the victory is claimed at the ballot box — without the shot of a single bullet to say the least — it is easy to lull oneself into believing that it was the rakyat alone that did it. Yet, at many points leading up to May 9, and after, the sultans encouraged the people to exercise their freedom of expression and assembly too. Bersih I, II, III, IV and V were all bathed in yellow — colour of the royalties. Did any one of the sultans oppose the colour? No. This alone should allow Malaysians from all walks of life to know that Malaysian sultans and Agong were extremely receptive to the people's power, as long as they do not run over into an orgy of violence. Here one must see the contrast provided by the Arab Spring in 2001 and the Malaysian democratic opening in 2018.

25. When the Middle East was consumed by the aftermath of the Arab Spring in 2011, one strategic trend was both apparent and obvious: Whereas Republican states likes Egypt, Libya and Syria, fell into prolonged conflicts, even coups and pith fights in the streets, the likes of those in Morocco, Bahrain and Kuwait were spared. Why?

26. Research by the Legatum Institute in Netherlands, and the Economist Unit, knew why. There was no power vacuum in those three countries that had some semblance of royal institutions in place.

27. Instead of the mobs against the state, and the state against the people, such dynamics were absent in countries that had the benefit of being governed by the monarchs.

28. Malaysia, one must remember, is a collection of nine Sultans, several former Straits Settlements and two states of Borneo. It is a pastiche of different entities.

29. It is also concurrently, a post colonial and NON colonial entity. While the Portuguese, Dutch and the British, may have ruled over the whole of Tanah Melayu, which formed the earlier remnants of Malaysia, Sultanates like Kedah, Perak, Johor, Negeri Sembilan, Kelantan, and Pahang, had little or no colonial accoutrements bearing down on them. They remain in existence, complete with their century long customs and traditions.

30. Thus between 1511 and 1957, the sultanates enjoy different form of relationship with the colonial overlords. When Britain proposed the formation of a country, devoid of any regal respect of the royalties, the Malays Rose in unison to launch what is known as the "hartal" or boycott movement. The key was to send a message to London that any formation of a Federation must first protect the rights of the Malays and the rulers to which they respect.

31. On May 9, the vigour and vibrancy of the people was again in full display. Instead of coming under the dominion of a kleptocracy that was Umno, the people objected to its excesses. They rallied around, and against, the grand larceny of 1MDB.

32. In fact, one should note the original formation of 1MDB was the Trengganu Investment Authority (TIA). But the Sultan of Trengganu refused to endorse it. Thus TIA became 1MDB. Scores of research by Clare Rewcastle Brown and Bradley Hope and Tom Wright have confirmed this point. The royalties refused to submit themselves to the theft of the few against the rakyat.

33. At critical point in the run up to May 9, the sultanate of Johor, affirmed the importance of "Bangsa Johor" to firewall itself from the obscenities of 1MDB, when the royal household could just have glibly — and wisely — been referring to Bangsa Malaysia. As things were, Johor the birth place of Umno fell head first, and the rest of Umno throughout the country, could not generate any moral authority to insist on their right of perpetual domination over the whole of the country.

34. Indeed, one must remember the fragility of Malaysia, had Johor not been the (royal) mainstay to remind everyone that the state refused to allow the country to crash and burn, that would engulf "Bangsa Johor," the election date of May 9, 2018 could have been intentionally moved to May 13, 2018.

35. The motivation of Umno and PAS, none other, was to resurrect the ghost of the riots of the prior May 13, 1967, one that witnessed the worst racial bloodletting in the country. Had that plan been carried forward, the electoral turn out could have been low, thus, neutralising a Malay and Malaysian tsunami.

36. Yet May 13, 2018 fell on a Sunday. Umno was spooked by its own ghost. In 2013, Umno and Barisan National nearly lost the entire government on a general election that was scheduled on a Saturday. Clearly, they did not want a repeat of the spectre of being defeated on a weekend.

37. Thus the 14th general election was called on a mid week, a Wednesday, not least, to curtail the enthusiasm of the rakyat. This did not work, to be sure, as Umno and Barisan National were defeated wholesale.

38. The nub of the point is this: Malaysia remains a young and fragile country. Should there be any elements out to ruffle the delicate racial fabric of the country, they can. All it takes are a few firebrand to stir emotions to the zenith. Take the statement of Lokman Adam of Umno Youth, for example.

39. It has dawned on him lately, that had Khairy Jamaluddin held firm, and allowed Najib to create a last minute electoral pact post May 9, Umno and PAS could have broken the unity of Pakatan Harapan. In other words, Pakatan Harapan would have lost its bearings from get go in the wee hours of May 10.

40. If such a pernicious logic and statement was to be repeated often enough, the discourse of the likes of Lokman Adam in Umno would have prevailed. The collective denial of Umno and Barisan National, as it is exhibited by Najib now, could have been set into a stage of permafrost.

41. Indeed, one often forgets that PPBM or Bersatu has a constitution that is bent on protecting the Federal Constitution, invariably, the the constitutional monarchy of Malaysia. Various articles of its association and rules in it's party constitution could not have come to pass, if they were not aligned to the Federal laws of the country.

42. Attempts to disparage the royal institutions should be curbed, and their indulgence online, contained by the Malaysi Multimedia Communication Commission (MMCC); as should be any efforts to sow the seeds of racial and ethnic tensions.

43. Malaysia is a construct that is formed of various social contracts too. The Spirit of Merdeka protects the rights of the Malays and non-Malays, just as Rukun Negara, Dasar Ekonomi Baru and Wawasan 2020 are all threaded together.

44. The royalties have their place in the Federal Constitution, as they do in the various social contracts, which the rakyat too benefit from immeasurably. The key was to create a win win formula that would prevent a sudden lurch to the left or right of Malaysian politics; as had been seen in the Middle East.

45. If Malaysia is to prevail as a country, be it as a manufacturing power or service economy — ideally both — each and every one of the people, across various strata of the country, must not do no harm, as affirmed by the Hippocratic oath, but inflict no evil and pain on the others, including and especially on issues verging on religions, royalties and race. Together, they must condemn the politics of cash, connections, concessions and contracts that have very nearly brought the country to rue. It is fortunate that 1MDB has now gone from a civil suit in the US Department of Justice to a criminal one. It is not Malaysians alone echoing the charges and changing the fate of the country but the world standing in attention with patriotic Malaysians to consign the corrupt international financial system to further scrutiny.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 7 — Malaysia’s third Universal Period Review (UPR) will take place on November 8, 2018 in Geneva. The UPR is a UN mechanism wherein states review the human rights situation of other states and make recommendations. In anticipation of the review, several countries have posed advanced written questions to Malaysia.

The United Kingdom has asked the Malaysian government when it plans to consider legislation to promote and protect gender rights, including a Gender Equality Act, and legislation to address sexual harassment and stalking. The government must demonstrate its commitment to fulfil its obligations to end violence and discrimination against women, and accept and follow through on the relevant recommendations received during the UPR process.

Pass a Gender Equality Act

On August 16, 2018, the government announced its plan to establish a Parliamentary Select Committee to examine issues around gender equality, and simultaneously announced that a Gender Equality Act was being drafted with input from NGOs and other stakeholders.

It is imperative that such act not only define gender discrimination and prohibit acts of direct and indirect discrimination in both the public and private sector, but also create specialised institutions to investigate and consider complaints of gender equality.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Liew Vui Keong announced that the Gender Equality bill is one of the bills the government is looking to introduce. We applaud the government’s recognition of the need for a Gender Equality Act and urge the government to share with the public their timeline for the adoption of such an act.

The UN Cedaw Committee also advised the government to provide a concrete timeline for the adoption of a Gender Equality Act pursuant to its 2018 review of Malaysia.

Enact a Sexual Harassment Act

Currently, the legal protections against sexual harassment are limited to the employment context and only apply to Peninsular Malaysia. The Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG), a coalition of 13 women’s human rights groups, has drafted a Sexual Harassment Act that applies to all of Malaysia, affords protection to individuals harassed in various contexts, requires both public and private sector actors to formulate a proactive policy on sexual harassment, and includes provisions for an independent tribunal to hear complaints, as well as an Interim Protection Order for victims.

Along with legislation on gender equality, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Liew Vui Keong also announced that a bill on sexual harassment is among the bills the government plans to introduce. The government should provide a timeline for the adoption of such an act and move expediently to ensure that women’s right to be free from the violence, intimidation, and discrimination that comprise sexual harassment is upheld.

Criminalise stalking

The legal framework in Malaysia currently affords little protection for victims of stalking, which can happen in isolation in addition to often being an extension of domestic violence or sexual harassment. We must pass a comprehensive law to criminalise stalking and provide victims of stalking protection, such as through a restraining order.

Meaningfully participate in the UPR process

Although the UPR process is one of peer review and therefore not binding in the same way as the UN conventions, the UPR mechanism is based on the work of the treaty bodies and can be used to follow up on concluding observations or recommendations. When a country is reviewed under the UPR, every 4 ½ years, other states make recommendations which are then accepted or noted by the country under review.

As with all of the international human rights mechanisms, the UPR process should be one of progressive realisation—rather than remaining stagnant or moving backwards in upholding of human rights, states should strive to continuously improve.

or Malaysia to meaningfully engage in the UPR process and continue to improve the state of women’s human rights in the country, it must be willing to accept any recommendations made on issues of gender equality and violence and discrimination against women, and to diligently work to implement these recommendations until the next review cycle.

Uphold our commitments under Cedaw and other international law

The question posed by the UK to Malaysia in advance of the upcoming UPR review echoes the concerns of the Cedaw Committee as articulated in their 2018 Concluding Observations to Malaysia. Cedaw is the UN convention articulating women’s human rights and states’ corresponding obligations to protect and promote them.

The Cedaw Committee called on the Malaysian government to adopt a concrete timeline for the adoption of the Gender Equality Act, as well as to adopt a comprehensive law on sexual harassment to enable complainants to seek redress without the time, cost, and public nature of going to court. The Committee also recommended the adoption of concrete measures to combat gender-based violence against women and girls, of which stalking is one form.

We hope that the new Malaysian government will take a proactive approach during its upcoming UPR review and commit to taking concrete measures to end violence and discrimination against women and promote gender equality.

NOVEMBER 7 — Two bits of news related to higher education caught my attention recently. The first was the release of the 2017 Joint Graduate Employment Survey in September, in which the stars turned out to be the Singapore Institute of Technology and the Singapore University of Technology and Design.

This led to a commentary asking if Singapore’s more traditional universities — the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University and Singapore Management University — were “losing their shine as higher education institutions?”

The commentary lauded the newcomers, rightfully so, for providing real-world “industry-centric and practice-oriented education.” And well they should, given that universities perform a civic duty to prepare its graduates for working life.

Then I read the second bit of news.

The British moral philosopher Mary Midgley passed away on October 10 aged 99, after a lifetime of asking inconvenient questions. This instantly recalled an essay that she wrote in 1990 titled, The Use and Uselessness of Learning.

So I now risk the ire of pragmatists and practitioners by posing the questions that Midgley first asked in her article, “How useless are we scholars? How useless ought we to be?”

When Midgley asked how “useless” academic research and scholarship should be, she is making the crucial point that knowledge creation is an inherently messy business, one in which what started out being denigrated as useless could turn out to be useful and transformative. The search for knowledge is one in which we only know retrospectively what we were looking for once we have found it.

And the research funding agencies typically do not know any better: They tend to continue whatever lines of investigation that are established and, increasingly so, immediately practical.

Of course, researchers, particularly when funded by public monies, have an obligation to solve immediate real-world problems. But the purpose of higher education should not be confined to addressing these already known and well-articulated problems.

Instead, higher education should also be concerned with what new questions need to be asked. It should go beyond a reactive mindset to creating the proverbial “solution in search of a problem.”

Such daydreaming, curious tinkering, and the restless modifications to accepted ways of doing things might come across as intellectual hubris or extravagance. But Nassim Taleb, of “Black Swan” theory fame, believes that these have been the primary drivers of progress.

In his book Antifragile, Taleb argues that innovations come about from freedom and boredom: freedom especially from the publish-or-perish system that tends to foment conservatism, and boredom that leads to flights of fancy. He points out that in the 19th century the key agents of innovation were the serious hobbyist and the English rector, often the same person.

The two Thomases come to mind: the Reverend Thomas Bayes who developed Bayesian probability, and the Reverend Thomas Malthus who gave us Malthusian economics. Needless to say, Taleb is being facetious, although I suspect not overly so.

Another case in point: Our understanding of electromagnetism came about from the curiosity and work of Faraday and Clerk Maxwell in the 19th century.

They certainly did not have practical applications in mind. They could not imagine the modern appliances that we now enjoy.

This was basic research for its own sake, which in turn led to happy albeit unplanned practical outcomes.

And yet our research enterprise tends to overlook the role of luck in discovery, and is instead conducted in a highly-directed, instrumentalist, linear, and teleological manner, and under constant pressure to culminate in a gadget or an app.

Universities, in their traditional forms, have come under criticism for being “ivory towers” disconnected from the real world. I would argue that, far from being embarrassed about that label, we should embrace it.

By all means, let us have some universities that are responsive to the needs of commerce and industry, both in terms of producing work-ready graduates and research that is immediately useful to corporations.

But let us also create and maintain the space to ruminate and contrive solutions to yet-to-exist problems or to invent problems to solve. Universities can and should provide the deliberate un-directedness for serendipitous discoveries to emerge.

This is no mere romanticisation of the past, or a naive attempt at valorising Taleb’s clergy-scientist-hobbyist. There is a practical concern here. If we cannot tell what areas of study will ultimately pay off, then what we need to do is place a wider and more unusual range of bets.

Diversity in thought and approaches is not a luxury but indispensable to knowledge creation in this age of uncertainty and complexity. More than ever, different approaches will be needed, and such approaches can only result from the time and space to try apparently useless and irrelevant things.

If simply because we cannot tell ahead of time if they might not turn out to be useful and highly relevant.

So, while it is important for universities to produce, say, a new generation of engineers fit for industry and ready to do the job today, they also have a responsibility to push the boundaries of knowledge and shape the field of engineering for the future.

We need a balanced higher education system in which we have our feet on the ground and our heads in the clouds. — TODAY

* Adrian WJ Kuah is director of the Futures Office, Office of the President, National University of Singapore.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 5 — AIMS Data Centre hopes that the Government will look into providing more incentives and exemptions for IT players, both local and foreign, in order to grow the industry in Malaysia.

In recent years, international players have favoured Singapore over Malaysia as the destination to set up their regional hub. Facebook’s announcement of its plan to build its data centre in Singapore follows closely on the heels of Google. A concerted effort is needed in order to put Malaysia back on the map.

In line with the Government’s vision to be a developed digital nation, tax leniency should be granted to the online and digital sectors if there are no additional incentives. Instead of granting tax privilege to local players, the local market should be made more competitive to create a more conducive business environment.

Local tech players could seek customised incentives or support from the Government if they can table constructive solutions to not only bring in investment, but also knowledge transfer and national infrastructure upgrades.

Another factor that will severely impact both foreign and local players is the time limit placed on carrying forward tax relief to a maximum of seven years. While established foreign players may be able to recover capital-intensive investment within two years while a local player might need three to four years minimum. This move could potentially become a hindrance to companies looking to set up a base in Malaysia and is something the Tax Reform Committee should further fine-tune to make it friendlier to business owners.

As data centres are crucial to the growth of a digital nation, we also hope the Government will introduce lower power tariffs, citing high energy costs as a major hurdle for companies looking to enter Malaysia. Lower power tariffs will renew interest from larger companies to enter Malaysia.

While the lower tariffs and tax exemptions are a step in the right direction, we believe that much more can be done to promote the growth of a digital economy, including prioritising more customised incentives for important pillars of the digitalisation movement.

We’re seeing a gradual increase worldwide in digital practices such as cashless payments and hardware virtualisation. To keep up with the pace of advancement, we need special tax incentives and exemptions to reduce the burden of digital industry players to encourage them to invest in, explore and adopt these technologies.

*Chiew Kok Hin is head of AIMS Data Centre, which is Southeast Asia’s leading carrier-neutral data centre and managed services provider.

**This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of MalayMail.

NOVEMBER 5 — Chairman of Council of Eminent Persons Tun Daim Zainuddin has recently stated that he would have granted Sarawak and Sabah autonomous status if it were up to him.

The only issue for him was that there had to be policy makers in place before such a move should be made and to ensure also that the process be discreet as it could spook investors.

There is little doubt that Tun Daim’s views are shared by the majority of Sarawakians and Sabahans who yearn for autonomy.

Lest we be carried away by the euphoria of such thoughts, it is wise to ponder on Tun Daim’s caution of having the right policy makers — people who have the welfare of the people of Sarawak and Sabah in mind and not just for the power that comes with the positions.

Managing states the size of Sarawak and Sabah is no easy matter especially when we have to consider numerous issues pertaining to our long borders, coastal waters and rights of minorities.

Sarawak cannot afford to go the way of failed African and South American states where oil revenues were wasted on frivolous policies that did not benefit the people and in fact leaving them much poorer than before they had independence.

Sarawak needs to ensure that our oil revenues are placed in sovereign funds like Norway and other European nations where all the people benefitted from the wealth of the land.

To start the ball rolling so to speak, the federal government could grant 20 per cent of the oil revenues to Sarawak as a gesture of goodwill and to provide a timetable for the handling over of education and health portfolios back to the state.

This will also be accompanied by proportioning the return of taxes collected from Sarawak to be returned to the state which is only fair while enabling Sarawak to slowly gain autonomy, as practised in Canada where the oil revenues go back to the producing provinces.

These are the baby steps that will have to be taken for a smooth transition of powers for autonomy of states which in long term will be blessing for all concerned as each will enjoy the fruits of their labour.

* Philip Wong is director of Sarawak Institute for Public Affairs (SIPA).

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

NOVEMBER 5 ― As one of many who will gain from Budget 2019, I applaud the benefits laid out especially for us the road users.

The Fuel Subsidy of 30 sen per litre for RON 95, capped at 100 litres for cars (1500cc and below) and 40 litres for motorcycles (125cc and below) per month may seem to be a small sum but let us do some simple calculation.

Assuming that one drives a Perodua Kancil (847cc) that consumes 15 litres each week or 60 litres each month. That would translate to a savings of RM18/month or RM216/year.

So if we extend further to a maximum usage of the subsidy at 100 litres for cars and 40 litres for motorcycles, it leads to savings of RM360 and RM144 respectively per year for each car and motorcycle. Of course we can only claim for one car only even if we may have more at home.

There is also the benefits from the Abolishment of Toll for motorcycles at the Penang Bridge, the Sultan Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah Bridge & the Second Link to Singapore from Johore. Based on the reported current toll charges of RM1.40, RM1.70 and RM2.20 (two-way) at the three Bridges respectively, we can work out an estimated savings model based on simple assumptions.

So based on the assumption of a five-day working week, multiply that with 4 weeks in a month and 12 months in a year, you can come up with the following amazing figures of the money a motorcyclist can save, using those bridges:

Penang Bridge = RM336/year

Sultan Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah Bridge = RM408/year

Second Link = RM528/year

Now if you ask me, these figures are pretty good !! Definitely it will benefit the B40 group, even the M40 and also a sprinkle of the T20 who still drives around in a simple 1300cc car or 70cc motorcycle.

To the unacquainted, the T20 group refers to those earning a household income of RM13,148, the M40 for household income of RM6,275 and the B40 for household income of RM3,000.

The data above are median monthly income for 2016, obtained from the Department of Statistics Malaysia website.

So my fellow Malaysians, isn't this Budget 2019 wonderful ?

Wonderful in the sense that I know what I am gaining. Reassuring because I know that it will not be taken away if I qualify for it. Let us not forget too about the many other benefits laid out for the various segments of society; raising the minimum wage to RM1,100, the RM500 one-off payment to civil servants Grade 54 and below. Even for the eligible pensioners receiving less than RM1,000 per month and RM250 for government retirees!

Now this will certainly be a good stepping stone to lift up our economy again.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of MalayMail.

NOVEMBER 4 — The recent announcement by the Malaysian government to abolish the death penalty has received divisive responses – on one hand, it was hailed by human rights advocates but on the other, it seems to be opposed by the general Malaysian public.

Even though there are many voices in urging the government to review this move and to listen to views of the majority of the people, the government shouldabolish the death penalty in its totality and it should be abolished now. This is because the death penalty goes against the most basic and fundamental right – the right to life. And in fact, we were already late in this as there are 106 countries which have abolished the death penalty.

Death penalty and deterrence

Many have argued that by doing away with death penalty, we will see the rise in crimes, especially heinous crimes like murder. However, studies after studies have shown that death penalty does not deter crimes more effectively than prison sentence. In fact, they reveal otherwise. According to Amnesty International, Canada since abolishing the death penalty in 1976, its murder rate has steadily declined and as of 2016 was at its lowest since 1966.

A study conducted in 2008 in the United States which was published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology further found that 88 per cent of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe that death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime.

Back to Malaysia, we have had death penalty for drug offences since 1975 and in 1983, we even made it mandatory for drug trafficking. The question is, was it effective? For us to say that by abolishing the death penalty would result in the increase of serious crimes would therefore be too simplistic and would in fact blind us from other more relevant factors and causes of such crimes.

Justice for victims and families

Others have argued that justice will only be served if those criminals especially murderers were being put to death for taking the lives of others. For those advocating for the abolition of death penalty would often be asked the question “What if it was your loved one being killed or raped?”. In all honesty, the very first answer or reaction that came to mind for most people, if not all, would probably be for the murderers or rapists to be killed! In fact, the late Karpal Singh who was a leading opponent of death penalty has once suggested for child rapists to be sentenced to death.

The topic of death penalty is indeed a difficult one as it cannot be debated without involving emotions. Only those victims and their families would be able to understand the pain and sufferings. However, if we were to look at this again rationally, we will realise thatwhat we are actually talking about is not justice but mere vengeance. Wanting to seek for vengeance can be understood but cannot and should not be accepted and be made into a policy of a civilised society. If we are going to live in a society of “an eye for an eye” by imposing death on murderers who took the lives of our loved ones away, are we then going to rape the rapists, assault those who have assaulted us and so forth? And if for any reason, a murderer managed to escape the law, are we then going to condone extrajudicial killing just so “justice” is served?

Wrongful convictions

We have to accept that no one and no system in world is perfect and not infallible. If a study in 2014 is right, then at least 4.1 per cent of all people who receive the death penalty in the United States are innocent. Even if one were to argue that the United States’ justice system is different than Malaysia’s and our justice system is better, then let us not forget Malaysia’s classic case of S. Karthigesu, who was probably the lucky amongst the unlucky ones. Therefore, even if we are going on with the assumption that our rate of wrongful convictions is merely 1 per cent, it will still mean that there would probably be at least 12 out of the 1267 inmates currently on the death row are innocent. And that is only on the assumption that the rate is 1 per cent and it does not include those who have been executed.

The death penalty has to be abolished in its entirety because by doing away with mandatory death penalty alone but retaining discretionary death penalty would not totally eliminate the possibility of innocent people being sent to the gallows as it would at its best reduce the number. The thought of having even one innocent person who could be wrongly executed should make us feel sick. If not, then we might be no different than those murderers whom we condemned as we are allowing innocent persons to be killed. Remember, that one person is also someone’s parent, child, sibling, spouse, relative or friend. And that one person could be our loved ones. When we talk about “justice” for the victims and their families, what about justice for those innocents who been wrongly convicted and executed and their families?

When an innocent person is being executed, the responsibility does not lie solely on the judge but the whole society will have to share that responsibility as we were the ones who allowed it to happen. To put it crudely, our hands will be (or would in fact, have been) stained with bloods of innocents.

Make the right decision

In discussing and deciding whether to retain or abolish the death penalty, it is important that we look at this issue rationally and ask ourselves two simple and basic questions – “What are the aims/goals of sentencing?” and “Does death sentence meets these aims/goals?”. If we accept that death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crimes and justice would not be served, then the only plausible argument left is incapacitation.

While there are many who have been executed or currently on death row deserve second chance, it is undeniable that there are some who would probably not going to repent or would be a danger to the public and should be incapacitated – so that they would no longer be able to commit crimes. However, if we can meet the goal of incapacitation by keeping them safely away from the public with life imprisonment or imprisonment for life, why should we retain the death penalty? If one were going to argue that it would cost us less by sending someone to the gallows than keeping them for life, then perhaps that is the price that we should pay and it would be worth paying if we can ensure that no innocent person would be executed (notwithstanding the fact that some studies have also shown that death penalty would cost more).

The move to abolish death penalty might not be a popular one but it is definitely a right move and the Malaysian government and lawmakers have the responsibility of making the right decision for the public. Also, only by abolishing the death penalty in its entirety would give us the moral authority to save Malaysians abroad who areon death rows but deserve a second chance.

* The views expressed here are the personal views of the author and he writes here in his personal capacity.

**This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.